I agree with Onno. There is a difference between component libraries and the framework itself. I want to use the framework without being forced to include some specific javascript library. That includes basic components like form fields etc. I wouldn't mind if more complex components still dictate the library. Then I can still decide whether I want to use them or not, whether I take the hit of including two libraries in the same page etc. However the status quo where even for the "simple things" like form validation and basic ajax prototype is required, is very unlucky.
Regards, Markus On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Onno Scheffers<o...@piraya.nl> wrote: >> >> In release X (say 5.2) we introduce a more complete Tapestry isolation >> layer >> and recode Tapestry's internal logic and components to use it. The >> isolation layer maps to Prototype and includes parallels to the common >> constructs of Prototype used by Tapestry (i.e., $(), observe(), and some >> animation). When X is release, we direct 3rd party component developers to >> release new versions of their libraries that code to the isolation layer. > > > > Are you saying that the component libraries themselves should be able to > switch between the supported JavaScript frameworks as well? If that's the > case, there is quite a bit of wrapping-code Tapestry needs to > introduce/support. Also, it'll be a lot of work for those 3rd party library > authors to rewrite and test against all supported frameworks. > > Another problem I see is that 3rd party library authors will want to wrap > existing framework-specific libraries and widgets that will always map > directly to the framework they are built for. That's actually one of the > main reasons for me to use jQuery: The amount of available widgets I want to > work with in my Tapestry applications. > > I think it makes sense for built-in components to talk to the abstraction > layer and of course nothing should be stopping 3rd party library creators > from doing the same, since it would be very cool. But I think it is more > realistic to let the 3rd party libraries dictate the JavaScript framework to > include. So if you're going to use Chenillekit, you are expected to include > Prototype JS into your project. And if someone creates a Tapestry-wrapper > for jQuery-UI in the future, you'll have to include jQuery. > > The main reason to still offer some framework-specific support in Tapestry > would mostly be to save precious client resources: There is no need to load > up a custom plain JavaScript event-model if the application already includes > Prototype or jQuery, since they already offer such a model. I also don't > think our plain JavaScript code will ever be as fast as the code offered by > those frameworks. > > My approach would be to try and keep the public interface of the Tapestry.js > file largely the same so existing components using it will keep working. > Then create a relatively small JavaScript object that is implemented > differently for Prototype/jQuery/plain. It should only hold the absolute > minimum amount of low-level functionality Tapestry depends on (like firing > and listening to events, basic animation, basic selector-functionality). > These Objects act as the JavaScript isolation layer and because they only > offer low-level functionality the amount of maintenance required on them > would be low once they are fully working. > Tapestry.js should be implemented to use as much plain Javascript as > possible and call into the isolation-layer where needed. So instead of using > the Prototype Hash objects for example, we could be doing the same thing > using either plain JavaScript arrays of by creating our own Hash-like > object. > > regards, > > Onno > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
