Are you really that surprised that Microsoft is not shipping YUI after
the failed attempts to take over Yahoo? :)
Seriously, there are technical reasons why I considered to use YUI,
not political. Just because some companies use jQuery it doesn't mean
Wicket should use it. Say most of the companies use JSF, does it mean
we should?
As I said, I really like the way YUI api is designed. Also there are
things in YUI "core" that are only available as jQuery plugins. The
plugins have different lifecycle than the core and are mantained
differently.
Also keep in mind that the javascript Wicket-Ajax uses is internal to Wicket.
Let me give you an example where I find YUI (3) api more elegant.
That's just one of many things and it is of course my personal
opinion.
If i want to unbind event in jQuery, i need to remember event name and
the exact handler instance. For YUI, i get event handler on bind that
i can just call detach on and the event is unbound.
var h = Y.on("click", handleClick, element);
h.detach();
Of course it is possible to mock the behavior with jQuery, but that's
not really the point, is it?
Another this is functionality provided in core. YUI can handle
multipart Ajax uploads (well, it can't do that in 3.0 yet, but it's
very likely it will be as it was supported in 2.x). For jQuery, i need
to use a plugin for it.
The reason why I feel so uneasy about plugins is that I've tried some.
And the quality really varies.
I think selectors might be the part where jQuery really shines. But
that's the part not needed by Wicket at all. Plus YUI has selectors
too (although maybe not that fast - I don't know, haven't profiled
them). Also the new YUI3 node API resembles jQuery chaining API for
those who like it.
-Matej
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Jörn Zaefferer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is something new to consider when choosing a JavaScript library
> as Wicket's base:
> http://www.jondavis.net/blog/post/2008/09/jQuery-Has-Won-The-3-Year-Javascript-Framework-Battle-As-Far-As-Im-Concerned.aspx
> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/jQuerytoshipwithASPNETMVCandVisualStudio.aspx
>
> Jörn
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Jörn Zaefferer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:24 PM, jWeekend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Matej,
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the implications of the decision to "base Wicket Ajax Next
>>>>> Generation on YUI" in terms of choosing a Javascript library for future
>>>>> Wicket based web front ends?
>>>> actually, there really are none. The use of YUI will be more or less
>>>> internal to Wicket, so you can continue using jQuery, YUI2 or whatever
>>>> else you are using. Everything in Wicket (and YUI) is namespaced so
>>>> there are no conflicts.
>>>
>>> Of course there is the overhead of including two or more libraries in
>>> an application, which don't find desirable.
>>
>> Wicket uses only part of YUI, the compressed minified required YUI
>> javascript is about 20kb big. I would understand the concern if I used
>> dojo or some other behemoth with 200+ kb of compressed javascript.
>>
>>>
>>>>> + there's huge number and variety of jQuery plugins for those special
>>>>> occasions.
>>>> Unfortunately the quality of plugins varies. For actual wicket ajax
>>>> implementation i prefer to stick with the core thing, and that's where
>>>> YUI definitely beats jquery. I don't say that there are no plugins for
>>>> jQuery that covers YUI functionality. Question is how well are those
>>>> plugins supported and maintained.
>>>
>>> You are well on the point that the variety of plugins varies. I see it
>>> this way: jQuery core is small, very stable and the base for
>>> everything else JS-related. jQuery UI is the official project
>>> providing the same stability and quality for various high-level UI
>>> components (like dialogs) and also low-level components (like
>>> drag&drop, sortables). We'll see at least two major releases this year
>>> that add more components to the mix. Anything else that isn't covered
>>> by core or UI is almost always covered by some third-party plugin.
>>> While these plugin can be of bady quality (eg. no
>>> documentation/demos), they can still provide a good starting point, so
>>> that you don't have to start from scratch. Even if you do a full
>>> rewrite, the existing plugin can expose useful information like
>>> potential browser-bug-traps.
>> Problem is that the jQuery core doesn't cut it. And rewriting plugins
>> from scratch? Are you serious? This is exactly the reason why I
>> decided to use YUI. The stuff that I need is there, it is supported
>> and maintained.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, as I say, this doesn't make any implication to Wicket users or
>>>> 3rd party components. The reason why wicket ajax is based on another
>>>> framework is to get rid of most of the low level browser specific code
>>>> we have currently so that I wouldn't have to maintain it :)
>>>
>>> Whatever the framework, I think its a good idea to start with
>>> something well supported and tested. Thats why I use Wicket, though
>>> I'd like it even more with jQuery as the base framework :-)
>>
>> At this point, I really don't see any advantage that YUI would give me
>> over jQuery.
>> Also it is possible that InMethod grid will be part of Wicket 1.5
>> extensions which is another point for using YUI. Rewriting the grid
>> with jquery would be a huge pain.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>>>
>>> Jörn
>>>
>>> PS: Comet support is a nice to have, but I think there a way more
>>> important things for core than that, eg. annotation-based validation
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
