Hi,
the dojo license have to be appropriate because it is already in tomahawk
;-)
I don't like the concept of the plugins from JQuery as mentioned above (from
ganesh).
I wouldn't use ExtJS as well (it has got the smack of commercial software
;-))
Alex
2009/5/27 Jan-Kees van Andel
Hi,
It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
Cheers,
Bruno
2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org:
Hi,
sure MyFaces
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
+1
Hi Matthias,
Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
library, it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
out of the box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
Facelets road, for new things.
Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
components; old-fashion
renderers are still, ok...
so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
I
Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins instead
of dojo.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote:
not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
Facelets road,
Hi,
yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes
I think it it is worth working on something like that.
IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon.
Which are your
Bruno Aranda schrieb:
Hi,
It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
Cheers,
Bruno
2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf
Ganesh schrieb:
Hi,
yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes
I think it it is worth working on something like that.
IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
Hi,
yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural ones
and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I think
it it is worth working on something like that.
IMHO we should first of
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Ganesh schrieb:
Hi,
yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I
think it it is worth working on something like
Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to
do with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my
own one is the table and the tree. For the tree I have gathered the
knowledge to
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to do
with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my own
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to do
with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The
I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's a
better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40
Hi,
Yes, sure, we're happy to share it. It's already under the apache
license and the copyrights belong to Alex and me, so there is no
problem. What name do you have in mind? Once we have a name, we can set
up a svn subproject and I can check in our dojoFacelets.
For the multi-library
I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
cagatay.civ...@gmail.com wrote:
I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
like ejb2 to me.
Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote:
I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
cagatay.civ...@gmail.com wrote:
I had terrible experiences with dojo in
AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they
use OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they
don't have the OS spirit.
Cagatay Civici schrieb:
Afaik gpl3 is compatible
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Cagatay Civici
cagatay.civ...@gmail.com wrote:
Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
I think that you can't extend it to offer asl based enhancements.
-M
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
wrote:
I think the ExtJS
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use
OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have
the
Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago. It's
compatible in theory, but not in practice.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
commercial license. The whole thing is
IMHO, Dojo, Prototype.js, JQuery and most other big JS libraries are
more or less the same.
Dojo was very bloated in the past, but the Dojo team have cleaned a
lot, which makes it a quite lean and mean library atm.
I've always been a Prototype.js fan because the programming model
looks the most
23 matches
Mail list logo
