Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 07:57 +, simonbun wrote:
>> I'm not so sure its such a bad idea to bundle a JS toolkit with the
>> framework.
>
> It's only been a month since the last time we had this thread. Do we
> have to do this again? :-(
>
> Really, you bring up
On 8/19/06, simonbun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm well aware that its no problem to use ajax right now by using any
> JS toolkit. My point was that it seems somewhat wasteful to have custom
> JS scripts for the admin generator, and then using a JS toolkit that
> does the same thing.
I
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 07:57 +, simonbun wrote:
> > I'm not so sure its such a bad idea to bundle a JS toolkit with the
> > framework.
>
> It's only been a month since the last time we had this thread. Do we
> have to do this again? :-(
>
> Really, you bring up
On 8/19/06, simonbun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Ajax would be a possibility. I know many of you don't like ajax, but
> i believe that if its used with consideration and restraint (i.e. no
> color-changing div layers flying about), it can be a big plus. This
> does not mean that the admin
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 07:57 +, simonbun wrote:
> I'm not so sure its such a bad idea to bundle a JS toolkit with the
> framework.
It's only been a month since the last time we had this thread. Do we
have to do this again? :-(
Really, you bring up nothing that hasn't been covered in the Lord
I'm not so sure its such a bad idea to bundle a JS toolkit with the
framework.
Last time i checked, there's about 65Kb of custom JS in django already.
>From a first glance this is all functionality that can be found in most
JS toolkits. Right now, if i want to use a toolkit, i have to accept
its
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for explanation.
I am also against bundling any JS toolkit with *core* framework.
--
Regards,
Max
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this
On 8/18/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, I'd be happy to explain -- my (very strong) preference is to
> bundle *no* JavaScript toolkit. That's partially because we shouldn't
> limit which toolkit developers use, and partially because it's
> unnecessary bloat within the
On 8/17/06, Max Derkachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have not looked at this branch at all, but I'll strongly suggest
> > that you remove the YUI stuff.
>
> Adrian, could You explain your opinion a bit more?
> Does that mean that there are plans to bundle another toolkit? If yes,
> what
Max Derkachev wrote:
> There's no established use of Dojo with Django yet.
> Hopefully, there would be no such "established uses" with any JS
> library. Django is a server-side framework. Even id Django is our
> framework of choice, let us decide which client-side framework to use
> in our
There's no established use of Dojo with Django yet.
Hopefully, there would be no such "established uses" with any JS
library. Django is a server-side framework. Even id Django is our
framework of choice, let us decide which client-side framework to use
in our applications.
Regards,
Max.
>I have not looked at this branch at all, but I'll strongly suggest
> that you remove the YUI stuff.
Adrian, could You explain your opinion a bit more?
Does that mean that there are plans to bundle another toolkit? If yes,
what toolkit?
Regards,
Max
The main reason why I switched was more timing then anything else. I
wanted to try a few different toolkits to practice with them and find
out the differences. I have never touched AJAX before this summer.
I tried Dojo first and did like it, and wrote some working code, which
I should be able to
James Bennett wrote:
> On 8/9/06, Linicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. Chris, would it be reasonable to move your work to Dojo?
>
> From the looks of things, that's how he'd implemented it at first; he
> then switched to YUI.
Do you know the reason? I am curious to know what was wrong.
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 19:25 -0700, Linicks wrote:
> [...]
> > AJAX integration is a nice touch, but I think that the use of YUI goes
> > against the established use of Dojo with Django.
>
> Where are we using Dojo at the moment?
>
> Malcolm
Malcolm,
I'm not sure how
On 10/08/2006, at 12:45 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:On 8/9/06, Chris Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hopefully that answers some of your concerns. I'm curious as to thecommunities take on it, if in general the opinion is to remove it thenI will. I personally think the admin interface would work well
On 8/9/06, Chris Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully that answers some of your concerns. I'm curious as to the
> communities take on it, if in general the opinion is to remove it then
> I will. I personally think the admin interface would work well with
> some AJAX built into it, but I
On 8/9/06, Linicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Chris, would it be reasonable to move your work to Dojo?
>From the looks of things, that's how he'd implemented it at first; he
then switched to YUI.
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Linicks wrote:
>
> AJAX integration is a nice touch, but I think that the use of YUI goes
> against the established use of Dojo with Django. After reading the
> proceeding threads in this post, a couple of questions come to mind:
>
> 1. Chris, would it be reasonable to move your work to
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 19:25 -0700, Linicks wrote:
[...]
> AJAX integration is a nice touch, but I think that the use of YUI goes
> against the established use of Dojo with Django.
Where are we using Dojo at the moment?
Malcolm
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
> Hopefully that answers some of your concerns. I'm curious as to the
> communities take on it, if in general the opinion is to remove it then
> I will. I personally think the admin interface would work well with
> some AJAX built into it, but I know that isn't the case with everyone.
> Comments?
On 8/9/06, Chris Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully that answers some of your concerns. I'm curious as to the
> communities take on it, if in general the opinion is to remove it then
> I will. I personally think the admin interface would work well with
> some AJAX built into it, but I
Hi all,
Thanks for your responses - concerns have been relieved.
I wasn't aware that there was no obligation to include the SoC stuff.
I think that the admin would gain a lot from having more JS/AJAX stuff
and that it would be a wise decision to pick a framework and run with
it. However as
from my understanding having YUI in this section is very localized, and would not affectyour choice of AJAX library to use within your applications.On 09/08/2006, at 9:05 PM, Chris Long wrote:Hi,I'm the developer working on the branch.A few things, hopefully to answer your concerns.1) The HTML and
Hi,
I'm the developer working on the branch.
A few things, hopefully to answer your concerns.
1) The HTML and JS is written that the AJAX can be turned off very
easily(currently it works better with JS disabled then enabled). And I
plan on implementing a method of selecting if you wish to use
Hey John,
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 10:41 +0100, John Sutherland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't want sound like an arse, but has anyone seen changeset 3541 [1]?
>
> I understand it's still a branch [2], but are we going to be getting
> all that YahooUI stuff in trunk?
>
> I don't want to get in a
Hi all,
I don't want sound like an arse, but has anyone seen changeset 3541 [1]?
I understand it's still a branch [2], but are we going to be getting
all that YahooUI stuff in trunk?
I don't want to get in a flame-war about the whole AJAX/JavaScript
thing, but I'm of the impression that Django
27 matches
Mail list logo
