On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Andy Pahne wrote:
>
> Onno Scheffers schrieb:
>>>
>>> I would prefer: Tapestry uses whatever javascript lib for it's internal
>>> functions. But this "whatever" library should play nice with user's
>>> libraries. (So, prototype, which is in internal use today shou
Onno Scheffers schrieb:
I would prefer: Tapestry uses whatever javascript lib for it's internal
functions. But this "whatever" library should play nice with user's
libraries. (So, prototype, which is in internal use today should be patched
in a way not to hijack $ ).
Sadly that would brea
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> Some of us create web applications that are on closed networks, too ...
>
Yep that's right, and for the matter I think more then "some".
Regards
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com
---
Some of us create web applications that are on closed networks, too ...
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Onno Scheffers wrote:
> Google already hosts quite a repository of JavaScript framework, so
> theoretically no framework needs to be included in Tapestry at all. It just
> gives you more ease-
>
> I would prefer: Tapestry uses whatever javascript lib for it's internal
> functions. But this "whatever" library should play nice with user's
> libraries. (So, prototype, which is in internal use today should be patched
> in a way not to hijack $ ).
Sadly that would break pretty much any Prot
>
> I understand your solution, but that just introduces a second "tapestry
> supported" javascript library. What if yet another library is better at some
> point, or some people prefer another one like yui or dojo (remember this was
> the "preferred" in t4 days, not that long ago).
> Do we really
>
> In any case, the users should not required to be aware of the javascript
> libraries it uses.
> We only have a limited set of components as is, no use fragmenting this.
End-users shouldn't, but we can expect a little more from developer, right?
:o)
I think most people working with Tapestry,
I would prefer: Tapestry uses whatever javascript lib for it's internal
functions. But this "whatever" library should play nice with user's
libraries. (So, prototype, which is in internal use today should be
patched in a way not to hijack $ ).
Then users have absolute freedom to use whatever
Dear Onno,
I understand your solution, but that just introduces a second "tapestry
supported" javascript library. What if yet another library is better at
some point, or some people prefer another one like yui or dojo (remember
this was the "preferred" in t4 days, not that long ago).
Do we re
Onno Scheffers wrote:
I am curious how you managed to include jQuery with
@IncludeJavascriptlibrary. I only managed that with a patched version of
jQuery, adding jQuery.noConflict() at the end of the jQuery javascript file.
Otherwise there were Javascript bugs... (using current stable 5.1 Tapes
Javascript bugs... (using current
> stable 5.1 Tapestry release)
>
> Andy
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this me
>
> I am curious how you managed to include jQuery with
> @IncludeJavascriptlibrary. I only managed that with a patched version of
> jQuery, adding jQuery.noConflict() at the end of the jQuery javascript file.
> Otherwise there were Javascript bugs... (using current stable 5.1 Tapestry
> release)
>
> However, in the current state, when you would include two jQuery based
> components from different libraries, you would actually be including
> prototype and two copies of jQuery.
>
> I think the first step would be to assure there is a common jQuery (and
> possibly also other libraries like yi
Angelo Chen schrieb:
my experience is, safer to use @IncludeJavascriptlibrary to include jQuery,
but seems to me that will also pull the Prototype related js too, probably
we should have @IncludeJavascriptLib not to include other js.
I am curious how you managed to include jQuery with
@In
users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/integrating-jQuery-components-tp24068609p24068871.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabbl
Dears,
I see there is a lot of discussion going on about making it possible to
include jQuery only in tapestry pages.
This seems to be coming from the concern that any pages which include
jQuery components may include both prototype and jQuery components.
However, in the current state, when
16 matches
Mail list logo
