I've been investigating performance of the wicketstuff-scriptaculous project
quite a bit recently. Scriptaculous is not what I would call a
"lightweight" javascript package, but the beauty of wicket is that they
automatically gzip javascript files, and can optionally minify the
libraries. This *d
well, i think you mix up with wicket-stuff-project size (the size you
download and deploy) and the size you have in the end the user to load.
for example look at wicket-contrib-yui. if you download it, its some
megs big, but it only puts small JS libs to the client using these
actually (there
On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
> javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.
You could try to rally people who can help you with this :-)
I think that it is also a matter of developing enou
because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.
like i said, this is not a critic move so no bashing
On 9/13/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> so why not start your own integration project? people who work
so why not start your own integration project? people who work on those are
scratching their own itch, and to them the download size is probably not an
issue.
-igor
On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
>
peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime
just an opinion about wicket stuffs
i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is larger
than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would
been discussed here already.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -Matej
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 9/5/07, bmarvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
&
ality".
>
> SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single, supported
> framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a1249481
n of mootools (although I may be wrong). Do the
>> Wicket
>> >> >> core
>> >> >> >> team plan on supporting and enriching this hand rolled framework
>> >> >> alone?
>> >>
gt; >> >> >> available such as jQuery, Dojo or Prototype? I believe you have a
> >> hand
> >> >> >> rolled version of mootools (although I may be wrong). Do the
> Wicket
> >> >> core
> >> >> >> team plan on supportin
rolled version of mootools (although I may be wrong). Do the Wicket
>> >> core
>> >> >> team plan on supporting and enriching this hand rolled framework
>> >> alone?
>> >> >> Surely it would make more sense to choose one of the main JS
>
working on what will
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> inevitably
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> be
+1
-Original Message-
From: bmarvell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:19 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: JavaScript Frameworks
Sorry,
Again mine is coming from a very front end perspective ie writing JS in a
progressive enhancement style
>>>> Why
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> wickets core JS framework not use one of the main JS frameworks
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
t;> >> that
> >> >> have dedicated teams of devs supporting it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Also I've found that Ajax widgets in wicket seem quite "here and
> >> there"
> >> >> in
> >> >> their implementatio
about a framework and
its
rich
functionality".
SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabb
a
>> >> datepicker
>> >> for example). Doesnt this go against what JS frameworks are trying to
>> >> provide? Choosing a decent framework such as jQuery or Prototype will
>> >> give
>> >> the developer a
gt;>>>>>
>>>> frameworks
>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> have dedicated teams of devs supporting it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I've found that Ajax widgets in wicket seem quite &
ted
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Choosing a decent framework such as jQuery or Prototype will
>> >> give
>> >> the developer a solid toolkit on which they can build, so extra
>> >> components
>> >> such as datepickers or custom widgets can be applied as "Plugins".
>> >> Stickin
jQuery or Prototype will
> >> give
> >> the developer a solid toolkit on which they can build, so extra
> >> components
> >> such as datepickers or custom widgets can be applied as "Plugins".
> >> Sticking
> >> to one framework reduces h
o extra
> >> components
> >> such as datepickers or custom widgets can be applied as "Plugins".
> >> Sticking
> >> to one framework reduces hits to the server, bandwidth, load and
> >> processing
> >> times all of which im
duces hits to the server, bandwidth, load and
>> processing
>> times all of which imho are good things.
>>
>> My worry at the moment is that the demos in wicket are very "lets get it
>> working on the frontend" and not "lets thi
ng on the frontend" and not "lets think about a framework and its rich
> functionality".
>
> SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single, supported
> framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
d things.
>
> My worry at the moment is that the demos in wicket are very "lets get it
> working on the frontend" and not "lets think about a framework and its
> rich
> functionality".
>
> SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single, suppor
are there any thoughts about using a single, supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent fr
26 matches
Mail list logo
