Pierce, thank you for the informative response.
I'm lucky that i (WO newbie) have the opportunity to communicate with an
AJAX && WebObjects expert.
> So exactly what problems are you having with dojo/wo? Consider that
> the problem may be dojo, not WO in particular. You could easily
> create a WODynamicElement for every new dojo tag, collect them in
> components, and have something much easier to use then straight dojo.
I have tried to run the sample dojo application under WO, but without
success. I have the job to port an existing java-app to WO/AJAX. But without
official WO docs, i have no plan how to do this. I tried to run the dojo
example to understand how i can integrate a dojo widget and let it
communicate with the WO server.
The first problems arise with the following statements:
<script type="text/javascript" src="js/dojo/dojo.js"></script>
dojo.require("dojo.widget.Button2");
Then i have to call a java method on server on occurence of events to get
actual data. But you have said that this is possible with direct actions
using WOActionURL. I have to try it. But are direct actions compatible with
sessions?
> I also think, that from this example, dojo is a bit weak as a
> Javascript toolkit. You'll spend a lot of time wiring stuff up in
> Javascript with Dojo compared to Prototype. Or contrast dojo with the
> Yahoo UI library:
I explored some AJAX libraries like RICO, but decided to use dojo, because
of the rich widget set. But i can you the yahoo toolkit too, if i can
integrate it easily in WO.
Pierce, can you write a small exaple app (Xcode project), just like the dojo
HelloWorld example, to show how the integration of the Yahoo UI (if you wish
Rico ...) can be accomplished in WebObjects? I think that i'm not the person
alone facing big problems with AJAX and WO.
Excuse me for my poor english.
Greetings,
Ahmet
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I'm primarily interested in general widgets and form widgets.
>>
>> I'm tired of trying to bring together WO and Dojo, so wanna give
>> up. I think
>> WebObjects clashes with AJAX. It doesn't make sense to use AJAX with
>> WebObjects.
>>
>> If anybody wants to convince me of the opposite, i'm willing ...
>
> Easy enough, I've been doing a lot of this lately. Warning, its
> going to be long, because I've been thinking about writing a post
> like this for a long time. I hereby give permission in advance if
> anyone wants to put this post on a website somewhere, just please
> attribute it and email me.
>
>
> Myth: Rails is a better framework for Ajax then WO.
>
> Reality: WebObjects is actually a better framework for use with
> WebObjects then Rails because it has a better component system then
> Rails. You spend a lot of time coding little tiny XML and HTML
> generators when doing Ajax and WO's component system makes that very
> DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself).
>
> Myth: WebObjects is hard to use with Ajax.
>
> Reality: WebObjects is easy to use with Ajax, its just that there
> is only one known library for Ajax-WO support, and its not well
> documented. Even then the library only goes so far in that it just
> provides new components to wrap a few script.aculo.us tags. I think
> its more of a documentation gap, not a code gap.
>
> Additionally, the WO documentation has always pushed people
> erroneously towards component actions and away from direct actions.
> If you use 90% direct actions like I do in my application, (See my
> "WebObjects on Rails" post), you'll find that direct actions are
> simple to code in reality, and very much like Rails which basically
> doesn't have component actions at all.
>
> Myth: You can't assign the name or id value of tags in WebObjects.
> I'm mentioning this one explicitly, because I had someone ask me
> about this recently, because they were trying to assign a WYSIWYG
> JavaScript editor to a text area.
>
> Reality:
>
> Actually, what really happens is that if you DON'T have a
> name=value or id=value line for your TextArea in WebObjects, it will
> generate a unique one for you. But you're more then welcome to
> specify one in your .wod file, and WO will use that. It's then up to
> _you_ to make sure its unique, so that you don't have multiple text
> area tags with the same name. In other words if you only have one
> textarea you wish to attach a Javascript WYSIWYG editor to, just add:
>
> textarea: WOText
> {
> id='wysiwyg';
> name='wysiwyg';
> value=textValue;
> }
> in your .wod file and you can use id with your Javascript just fine.
>
> Myth: WebObjects generates HTML
>
> Reality:
>
> Just because the components of your .wo file are .html and .wod
> doesn't mean WebObjects can only generate HTML. WebObjects is really
> at heart, a very, very, very, complicated printf. The result of a
> component can be HTML, XML, JavaScript, or even binary data. You can
> actually put whatever you want in the .HTML and treat WebObjects like
> a giant merge engine. For instance, you could generate PDF files
> using WebObjects; they're just text, and you could substitute text
> into the middle of the PDF boilerplate pretty easily.
>
>
> Background:
>
> We haven't used a lot of JavaScript at www.marketocracy.com, for
> a very simple reason: We don't have the testing staff to fire up 10
> different browser variations to test the site. And lets face it,
> programming in JavaScript sucks.
>
> Since someone invented that cool acronym though, that's
> changing. You would think it shouldn't matter that something has a
> name, but it does. I remember when the GoF Design Patterns book came
> out. There was nothing in there I hadn't figured out on my own, but
> now they had a name! I could say "Singleton" to my co-workers and
> they would know what I was talking about. I could buy a junior
> engineer the book, and he would soon be programming at a much higher
> level.
>
> So having a name helped, and the result is that there are a lot
> of cool toolkits out there. Since someone else wrote the JavaScript,
> that means I don't need to test 10 different browser variations.
>
> Which means I can make the site much easier to use and more
> interactive. Huzzah!
>
> Research:
>
> So the first thing I did was that I'd heard that Rails was cool
> and made Ajax easy. I'd heard that before, but that was when the
> version number was 0.13... So I went out and bought the Rails books
> and you know what I found?
>
> It's not that Rails rocks with Ajax, its that the Prototype
> Javascript library rocks. The documentation makes a big deal about
> doing Ajax with one line of code.
>
> <div id='<= posting.id'>
> <%= link_to_remote [div to update] [link options] -> %>
> </div>
>
> The reality is that all Rails is doing is writing one line of
> JavaScript. From the Ajaxy "rating" code I've been adding to my app,
> look at the following:
>
> <div id='<WEBOBJECT name=postingID></WEBBOBJECT>'>
>
> <a href="#" onclick="new Ajax.Updater('<WEBOBJECT name=postingID></
> WEBBOBJECT>', '<WEBOBJECT name=ratePosting></WEBOBJECT>',
> {asynchronous:true, evalScripts:true}); return false;">1</a>
>
> </div>
>
> Ok, so lets break it down. The way Ajax.Updater works from the
> Prototype library is you give it the id of a DOM object and a URL,
> and it replaces the DOM object with that id with the contents of the
> URL. Usually, you specify the area to update with a div tag which
> I've shown for completeness. For ratings I would need 1 div tag to
> enclose all 5 rating stars: <div><a></a><a></a><a></a><a></a><a></a></
> div>. I would also use a WOGenericContainer to generate the div tag
> with the right id rather then using the id='<WEBOBJECT
> name=postingID></WEBBOBJECT>' line, but I wanted it to be obvious it
> was div tag.
>
> So the Ajaxy part is the <a> tag, not the div tag.
>
> Here I have a manually built <a> tag with an onclick bit of
> javascript. That makes a single call out to the Prototype library,
> which has this cool call:
>
> new Ajax.Updater( elementid, url, options)
>
> It does something very simple: It pulls the HTML from the specified
> URL, and replaces the element with the specified id with the
> downloaded HTML.
>
> The two WebObjects tags specify the element ID and the link,
> they're just a WOString and a WOActionURL:
>
> postingID: WOString { currentPosting.primaryKeyString; }
> ratePosting: WOActionURL { see discussion }
>
>
> Now in my case, I'm a direct action snob. So my WOActionURL would
> look like the following:
>
> ratePosting :WOActionURL
> {
> directActionName="PostingRater";
> ?pkey=currentPosting.primaryKey;
> ?rating=cRating;
> ?wosid=NO;
> }
>
> This produces a result similar to Rails, because in rails you have
> to define an action for each class of link. In my case I tie
> directactions to pages/components, so my "PostingRater" page would
> return component-level HTML (minus any HEAD/BODY tags) that matched
> the existing <div> definition. Since we're using WebObjects, that
> turns out to be trivially easy if we build the enclosing <div> tag
> with a component PostingRater can just look like:
>
> <WEBOBJECT name=RatingDiv></WEBOBJECT>
>
> Using component actions, it could be even simpler:
>
> ratePosting: WOActionURL { action=ratePosting;}
>
> Because WebObjects, unlike Rails can have stateful components, the
> RatingDiv component could actually have all the logic and return self
> as the result of the action:
>
> public WOReponse ratePosting
> {
> currentPosting.ratePosting(currentRating);
> return self; // since this is called from JavaScript
> // return just myself, not self.page
> // this will tell WO to render only
> // this as a result.
> }
>
> That is, the link for the javascript would go into the RatingDiv
> component with everything already setup: the current posting, the
> current rating. Returning self then causes the div to regenerate.
>
> [[[However, there's a gotcha there, because component actions
> called from javascript count towards your backtracking count. Since
> someone might be going down through the page clicking rating after
> rating, that could be a problem. If your max backtracking count was
> 10, and you had 20 postings on a page, they wouldn't be able to rate
> the 11th page. ]]]
>
> So where Rails has one line, I have two WOTags, but those could
> (and should) be easily combined by creating a WODynamicElement to
> generate the link directly. In essence, it would be pretty easy to
> create a "RemoteLink" WODynamicElement that did everything the Rails
> "link_to_remote" call did, namely take an id to update along with all
> the options WOActionURL takes.
>
> But additionally the WebObjects solution is superior in a number of
> ways to the Rails solution. Rails has support for both "partial
> pages" and "components" but the reality is that components are pretty
> heavyweight/slow and partials don't quite do what you think. So the
> WebObjects solution, by wrapping both the logic and state into a
> component ends up being more DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and better
> encapsulated then the typical Rails solution. In the page where you
> want the Ajax bit, you specify the component, and you put the ajax
> handling logic in the component itself.
>
> I have yet to see anything in the Rails Ajax support that couldn't be
> just as easily done in WO via a combination of WOComponents and
> WODynamicElements. Pretty much everything in the Rail "Ajax support"
> are one-liners in Prototype. In fact, because pages/components can
> have state, its probably _easier_ to do it in WO then in other
> systems. Also, I think you could build a set of WOComponents that
> provided _superior_ Ajax support then Rails. It's just that no one
> has written the supporting WODynamicElements or WOComponents.
>
> Now looking at the dojo Hello World example Ahmet (http://
> dojo.jot.com/WikiHome/Tutorials/HelloWorld), I have to say, that
> there's nothing in WebObjects that precludes doing anything in this.
> 90% of this tutorial is JavaScript that isn't specific to any
> particular technology. The parts that are specific to PHP/ASP/
> ColdFusion are defining a new page just like you'd have to do in
> WebObjects. Just use a WOActionURL where it says url: in the
> Javascript and you're done.
>
>
> I also think, that from this example, dojo is a bit weak as a
> Javascript toolkit. You'll spend a lot of time wiring stuff up in
> Javascript with Dojo compared to Prototype. Or contrast dojo with the
> Yahoo UI library:
>
> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
>
> The whole "Dialog" thing in yui is cool:
>
> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/container/dialog/index.html
>
> And would lend itself quite readily to the model WO has of building
> pages out of pieces.
>
> Then again, dojo is only at version 0.3. The WYSIWYG editor is
> nice, but I really don't want to have to define my dialog boxes in
> yet another tag language. HTML is good enough for me.
>
> So exactly what problems are you having with dojo/wo? Consider that
> the problem may be dojo, not WO in particular. You could easily
> create a WODynamicElement for every new dojo tag, collect them in
> components, and have something much easier to use then straight dojo.
>
> Pierce
>
------ Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to archive@mail-archive.com
