Totally Werner. I suspect we'll add cases as needed in order to accommodate the entire tech stack for MyFaces.
Okay, let me see if I can get an initial drop of code put somewhere and we can go from there. Scott On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Scott, MyFaces in its core _Runtime.js also uses some inheritance > framework, you basically currently get single inheritance, namespacing > singletons and delegation. > What I have not provided yet due to the lack of need is mixins. > > Also I have code to lazy load scripts etc... > > I coded it because I felt it made sense to stay on the oo side of things even > if it was just for jsf.js which has a limited scope and > so others who do not want to rely on a big framework like yui can get > basic OO into their own code without having to roll their own solution > (mostly Tomahawk was my main concern here which has a load of scripts which > would benefit tremendously from being ooed) > > But I would not recommend our core as sole base for an entirely newly written > renderer part of a component framework, because it is limited in its scope, > of providing the core language mechanism and some dom routines to get a good > maintainable structuring into jsf.js and make browser optimizations somewhat > easier. > > Just wanted to add that as info. > > Werner > > > > Am 12.03.11 23:11, schrieb Scott O'Bryan: >> Yes, ADF Faces. The two share a similar API but ADFFces is much more rich. >> It has animations, push technologies, and some other things. The >> client-side JavaScript has been re-engineered as well and while it uses >> Trinidad as the foundation, there is a lot more on the client side. >> >> Suffice to say that ADFFaces javascipt uses an inheritance framework that is >> a little more robust then standard JS inheritance patterns. We would have >> to rip that out and allow he MyFaces projects to replace it with their own >> grammars. >> >> Scott >> >> On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Walter Mour�o<walter.mou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension >>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward >>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be >>> done with the framework. >>> >> >> Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ? >> >> Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business >> applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are done >> currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code uses >> some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Walter Mour�o >> http://waltermourao.com.br >> http://arcadian.com.br >> http://oriens.com.br >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan<darkar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Walter, >>> >>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad >>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the >>> framework. >>> >>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension >>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward >>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be >>> done with the framework. >>> >>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction >>> personally. ;) >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mour�o<walter.mou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Dominik. >>>> >>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete... >>>> I think Trinidad has: >>>> - rock solid back-end; >>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old >>> data >>>> collectors - windows mobile) >>>> ... >>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating >>> my >>>> applications to an "up to date UI". >>>> >>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I >>> don't >>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can >>> help >>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to >>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another >>> library. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Walter Mour�o >>>> http://waltermourao.com.br >>>> http://arcadian.com.br >>>> http://oriens.com.br >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<domi...@dominikdorn.com> >>>> >>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces >>>>> etc., >>>>> I suggest to take a look at >>>>> >>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/ >>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com >>>>> >>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF. >>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of >>>>> interest, especially >>>>> in the rails community. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mour�o<walter.mou...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would >>> like >>>>> to >>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base >>> to >>>>> a >>>>>> new Trinidad render kit. >>>>>> >>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/> >>>>>> >>>>>> (another options ?) >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Walter Mour�o >>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br >>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br >>>>>> http://oriens.com.br >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dominik Dorn >>>>> http://dominikdorn.com >>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn >>>>> >>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu ! >>>>> >>> >> > >
