AFAIK jQuery does not pollute at all object prototype. Regarding the wicket way of doing ajax, it shouldn't be changed from scratch. Eventually, small improvements and changes can be made.
Alex Objelean. Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't think current wicket output is that bad, just look at what > some JSF implementation produce :) > Seriously, we might consider different approach (the one like you > suggest) for 1.5. But I don't think current wicket approach is > something that desperately needs to be fixed, though there certainly > is room for improvement. > > As for jquery unobtrusiveness, IMHO anything that pollutes object > prototypes in javascript can hardly be considered inobtrusive. > > -Matej > > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Ned Collyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Edvin, >> >> I am an advocate of JQuery :). I even won their icon design contest, and >> I've been using it for years! I think it should be used in all projects >> that require effects or cool DOM manipulation. >> >> I love the "unobtrusive way" and xhtml strict! >> >> That being said, when it comes to wicket AJAX - just use the wicket ajax >> and >> be done with it. No point mucking with something thats already >> excellent. >> It works and its easy. Why reimplement that bit - and potentially open >> up >> bugs that you need to go debug. >> >> For effects and DOM manipulation, you can use JQuery by adding header >> contributors. It is cleaner.. and in many instances easier to debug. It >> makes development quick and painless. >> >> If it wasn't wicket - id suggest using JQuery for ajax. >> >> >> Edvin Syse wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a webdesigner who keeps harassing me with the way Wicket does >>> JavaScript, attaching behaviour to onclick events etc. instead of doing >>> it "the jquery way" of picking up the components and attaching the >>> events afterwards, thus keeping all the nasty bits away from the actual >>> markup. >>> >>> Ofcourse the code looks a lot cleaner "the jquery way", and he tells me >>> that debugging and working with the code is also much easier. Personally >>> I don't know enough about html/javascript to decide what's the better >>> approach, but I just wanted to know if there are any plans to rework >>> this in Wicket, or if the current approach is just as good? >>> >>> -- Edvin >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-inline-JavaScript-tp17402101p17404025.html >> 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/Wicket-and-inline-JavaScript-tp17402101p17445575.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
