Right then so for completeness: * Ajax Calls [In house] * Animation [animator.js] * Dom manipulation and traversal (CSS style for this is becoming highly favourable) [??] * Events [??]
Has any of this been addressed or considered yet? I'm just coming in from the point of a front end developer and trying to identify whats either missing or I cant find :confused: Gerolf Seitz wrote: > >> >> >> So for those specific issues are we to say: >> >> >> http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2007/04/16/javascript-animation-libraries-compared/ >> >> Is the future?? > > > in this case, take a look at > http://wicketstuff.org/confluence/display/STUFFWIKI/wicketstuff-animator > ;) > > gerolf > > Matej Knopp-2 wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > this question has been asked here numerous times. The thing is, there >> > is in fact no real alternative of wicket-ajax for us. >> > >> > Wicket is not built about Ajax widgets.Wicket is about server-side >> > components that can be partially updated using Ajax. That's a >> > fundamental difference. >> > >> > As for the features, wicket-ajax has numerous advanced features such as >> > - asynchronous pipeline that allows loading dependencies in >> > asynchronous way, yet respecting the order (unlike e.g. dojo where the >> > depending javascript are loaded using synchronous http requests which >> > block entire browser = usability disaster) >> > - ajax channels that allow you to stack or drop pending requests >> > - multipart ajax response for replacing multiple components in one >> > response, ajax header contribution processing (so that component can >> > render header response as it would normally do, wicket transparently >> > processes it and loads all dependencies (javascript references, >> > stylesheets, etc) in an asynchronous way while respecting the order) >> > - wicket-ajax.js is about 7kb compressed (with stripped down >> > comments). As this is a general purpose ajax framework, the size >> > matters. For sites where you using ajax only on certain places, having >> > a 200kb javascript dependency would be quite a burden >> > - there's more to it, the code is quite well documented, if you are >> > interested you can dig into it, also you should search achives, this >> > has been discussed here already. >> > >> > -Matej >> > >> > >> > On 9/5/07, bmarvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> This is my first post so please be gentle ;) >> >> >> >> I'm a user interface developer (no Java) working on what will >> inevitably >> >> be >> >> a fairly heavy Ajax wicket project. After looking at a number of Ajax >> >> examples and pre built widgets I have to say I'm a little puzzled! Why >> >> does >> >> wickets core JS framework not use one of the main JS frameworks that >> are >> >> 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 supporting and enriching this hand rolled framework >> alone? >> >> Surely it would make more sense to choose one of the main JS >> frameworks >> >> that >> >> have dedicated teams of devs supporting it? >> >> >> >> Also I've found that Ajax widgets in wicket seem quite "here and >> there" >> >> in >> >> their implementation. Some demos use prototype, some use YUI (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 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 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 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 >> >> -- >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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] >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12495715 >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12495970 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
