I agree with Ron. Personally I use some homegrown Javascript libraries to do just what I need (and no more), so wouldn't want to be forced to use external heavy-duty libraries.
Nothing wrong with including it if desired, as long as it can be turned off or replaced in someway (something that may obviously impact on Tacos components). -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Piterman Sent: 01 February 2006 11:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 thoughts While dojo seems a very good library, there are some serious considerations about making tapestry really dependeant on it - I would like to know if that is going to be the case for 4.1... Well, as unpopular as it may sound, I find that very unacceptable - dojo, as hip as it is, has also many disadvantages - like getting really hard on the browser for very basic tasks - so page load time is very long, getting high latency also when using top hardware - I don't want to know what happens when and if using old browsers and hardware - I think if tapestry is heading the way of being a web framework for ajax applications, not giving the basic sleek functionality for good old web 1.0 - well - this requires some discussion from the community. currently, all JS is clean and functions well, I hope it stays that way, *enabling* one to use JS libraries such as Dojo, but not *imposing* one to use a certain one... Cheers, Ron Norbert Sándor wrote: >> I agree that <service> was easier than the HM approach, which is >> (infinitely) flexible. > > I think that the most perfect solution is if Hivemind supports > annotations therefore engine service implementations can define their > dependencies using annotations. (+ autowiring) > >> 1) Keep backwards compatibility and evolve the code base (give or >> take) >> 2) Sacrifice backwards compatibility, but create the simpler, less >> ambiguous (easier to learn) framework people want > > 2) > >> My current vision is that the 4.1 code base will be about creating >> new components, including Ajax integration. Most of the innovation is > > Will 4.1 based on DOJO? (= Tacos and Tapestry 4 will be merged?) I > think it is very important to fully support DOJO (now both Tapestry > and DOJO are stable): > - some unified (documented) way to convert DOJO components to Tapestry > components > - make them working in case of "partial" refresh > - etc (more active dojo/tacos users may continue the list) > >> - Annotations based. JDK 1.5. > > Great, I would love generics in the API methods as well. (Currently my > code is full of warnings because of lack of java5 support.) > >> - No XML for pages and components. Just HTML and Annotations. > > I don't like this, separating layout and component defs is a very good > thing in tapestry! > I define components only in the .jwc/.page file, even in case of the > most simple RenderBody. And I think @Component is not a clean solution > especially when the component has many subcomponents, the class file > becomes "ugly". > >> ... others > > Great! > > Regards, > Norbi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
