Ditto from me.
Geoff
On 02/02/2009, at 5:45 AM, Borut Bolčina wrote:
IMHO creating more "high level" components and better documentation
are the
things to spend time on, if not even crucial and certainly not
switching JS
library just after the framework was released.
Regards,
Borut
2009/2/1 <farm...@linagora.com>
Whether or not one "likes" jQuery or not isn't the point. Tapestry
is
built with prototype, and it works. That's the point. Were it
built with
jQuery, I would have raised the same question if the suggestion of
switching to prototype had been brought up. It's not my preference
that's behind my resistance, it's the simple pragmatism of "if it
ain't
broke don't fix it." On the other hand, the prospect of a
pluggable JS
framework is interesting and I'm all for that. That is a feature; an
improvement. A wholesale switch from prototype to jQuery just
doesn't
seem like time well-spent.
Can't agree more :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
