Nice job!
Here are the results on my Windows Vista box:
Firefox 2: yahoo better than animator, but both hang during the animation
IE7: broken
Opera9: works very well with both libs, far the best, except the very first
time, because it starts the animation while loading the image, so you see an
an
It looks like we're almost done backporting[1] the 2.0 features to 1.3
(except for the Java 5 features of course). The one remaining is
'AutoLinkResolver'. Who will be looking into that? I have no idea what
that issue is about tbh.
Anyway, we have quite a few issue reports[2] to look after as wel
On 4/16/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the size difference makes animator
better pick i think.
When I compare the sizes of whats loaded on the two pages it's:
Animate.js: 80kb
Yahoo: 70kb
Where the javascript part is
Animate.js: 23kb
Yahoo: 9kb + 4kb
So when Yahoo page lo
Of course, I haven't optimized/compressed animate.js, which Yahoo has
done for its scripts.
Martijn
On 4/16/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/16/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But the size difference makes animator
> better pick i think.
When I compare the sizes
Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
All,
I've been working for a while now on an animated homepage for wicket
(not that we *have* to use it, it is a gimmick), and it was originally
based on animate.js (the proposed animation library). I also converted
it to yahoo animation (which is quite similar), and t
On 4/16/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, I haven't optimized/compressed animate.js, which Yahoo has
done for its scripts.
Sure. After only decompression yahoo is 44kb, which is much more that
animate which still isn't optimized.
But yahoo runs smother here (FF on wi
I think it's really not that relevant which one is smoother. The site
is not a common usage of anim lib. If you want bouncing logo, you
should use flash probably. It's not the javascript that matters here,
it's browser's rendering engine.
-Matej
On 4/16/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Jean-Baptiste Quenot:
> * Johan Compagner:
> >
> > Which one should be dropped? The ResourceStreaMRequestTarget?
> > That will break all kinds of things. Then just adapt it the way you want.
>
> Don't take "drop" literally, I mean make
> WebExternalResourceRequestTarget reuse the
> WebExternalR
* Igor Vaynberg:
> do with it what you will. i was just working down the todo list
> in our backports page :)
Done, I reverted the backport of this change. When I first put
this in the backports page I didn't know that the code was broken
and unnecessary, just noticed a difference bet
Sounds reasonable to me.
Eelco
On 4/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
by default components will not do anything special in the new onattach. the
new onatach/detach will also not allow any changes to the hierarchy.
the usecases are such that the component needs to be "initialized
if this is correct:
onAttach() - called as early as possible to attach resources. cannot
modify component hierarchy.
onBeforeRender() - called when onAttach() is now called. can modify
component hierarchy.
then this sounds good. +1
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> see this issue:
11 matches
Mail list logo
