These are all good points. When this last flared up, at least a year
back, I didn't want to tackle it because I could not then say what the
"minimal set of functionality" would be. I think we're closer now.
Coding in such a way that we can easily swap out or mix-n-match
Prototype and jQuery will make people very happy.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Davor Hrg <hrgda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One small example from tapestry.js
> when looking at this as prototype centric app
> it is totaly ok, but from the angle of enabling other libs this approach
> is completely unnecessary and easily fixed.
>
> again this is one example (rewriting all may not be as easy)..
>
> this code is called (tapestry.js:551)
> Element.addMethods(['INPUT', 'SELECT', 'TEXTAREA'],
> ...
> getFieldEventManager : function(field)
> ...
>
> searching whole source for tapestry core reveals that this function is only
> used in tapestry.js
>
> tapestry.js:588
> element.getFieldEventManager().showValidationMessage(message);
>
> the code can easily be rewriten to use
>
> Tapestry.getFieldEventManager(element).showValidationMessage(message);
>
> this removes need for prototype and extending dome nodes for this example
>
> You can argue that other projects might rely on tapestry doing things like
> this,
> but an compatible version for prototype can be left like this and version
> for other libs
> with the new approach (the other libs don't like prototype.js anyway). This
> can mean
> that people with other js libs are fixed to tapestry core only but this I
> suppose is ok for many....
>
>
> Davor Hrg
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Davor Hrg <hrgda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was even willing to do this wrapper thing almost a year ago,all this is
>> from going through tapestry js code last spring....
>> some things are just thoughts on what should not be done, and some may be
>> comments on tap.js ....
>>
>> the Tapestry js code is not so complicated,
>> and uses only a portion of prototype
>>
>> there can even be something like prototype slimmed for it to work as well.
>>
>> the components are not remotely close in complexity to any framework
>> even prototype is overkill for tapestry.
>>
>> It definitely extensively used Function.bind which is a five-liner and
>> is similar dojo.hitch, it also uses $ function which is a simple as well
>>
>> It should avoid prototype specific approach of expecting dom nodes
>> prototypes upgraded and fallback to plain old utility functions
>>
>> why call :
>> $("element").hide()
>> when you can as well call (not saying code like this exists in tap.js) :
>> Tapestry.hide($('elem'));
>> and be more portable
>>
>> Tapestry core just needs to define a set of minimal js utility functions
>> and use prototype for bas on how the funcs should work.
>>
>> example funcs:
>> Tapestry.addClassName
>> Tapestry.effect.fadeIn - total light version of js might do no fade and
>> just display content
>> Tapestry.calcPos - absolute pos for element so a floated one can be aligned
>> to it
>> some subset of jquery like funcs to more easily find nodes (but search
>> only)
>> no magic calls to change all nodes properties and shit.
>>
>> if a submit button can not get context why do crazy stuff in js that is not
>> necessary
>>
>> after that adding/using other js frameworks would be no problem for those
>> that like them.
>>
>> unfortunately I lost a bit of interest after some of my patches not making
>> in
>> the framework for a long time :(:(
>>
>> I don't mean to bash on T5, and I do hope I make more time for it in
>> following moths.
>>
>> The blame could be on me as well, a year has almost passed since I looked
>> into this, and haven't done much since. :(:(
>>
>> Davor Hrg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Peter Stavrinides <
>> p.stavrini...@albourne.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >it would be nice if a component could indicate
>>> >that the scripts should be at the top for the entire page
>>> Vote for this Jira, which requests exactly that:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-369
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joachim Van der Auwera" <joac...@progs.be>
>>> To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, 2 February, 2009 17:22:06 GMT +02:00 Athens, Beirut,
>>> Bucharest, Istanbul
>>> Subject: Re: Switch from Prototype to jQuery?
>>>
>>> I am not so sure.
>>>
>>> Do all pages/components work the same way if you move the scripts to the
>>> top?
>>> If that is the case, then it would be nice if a component could indicate
>>> that the scripts should be at the top for the entire page.
>>> If not, then there is a problem if you want to combine a component which
>>> requires scripts at the top with a component which requires scripts at
>>> the bottom.
>>>
>>> Joachim
>>>
>>> Kevin Menard wrote:
>>> > This was an older app that I haven't needed to revisit. At the time,
>>> > no such directive existed. If it does, great. Then I guess there
>>> > really aren't any problems after all.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joachim Van der Auwera
>>> PROGS bvba, progs.be
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
