Hello, Chris! On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:15 AM Chris Poulsen <mailingl...@nesluop.dk> wrote:
I think most of our code is coded more directly against jQuery than against > the t5 modules (we are mostly using the t5 functionality for receiving ajax > responses and having access to constants etc.). I think most of our devs > find it cumbersome to deal with the Tapestry specific modules and the > somewhat foreign documentation vs. just going to the jQuery docs and > relying on examples from the web. > Given there's an ongoing effort to improve Tapestry's documentation, I'd like to hear more about what you called "somewhat foreign documentation". I believe there's a bit of confusion about the Tapestry JS modules vs jQuery. They're not really a substitute for jQuery (unless you count the very few browser-specific codepaths in t5/core/dom, which are probably not even needed in current browsers) at all. The Tapestry modules either provide JS support for the Java pages, components and mixins, so they're not meant to be used by users' projects, or provide Tapestry-specific utilities for users' projects (programmatically triggering a Zone update, interacting with Tapestry's JS, easy triggering of server-side events with t5/core/ajax module, specially in combination with @PublishEvents, etc), not generic JavaScript utilities like jQuery does. > We are using the jQuery that Tapestry provides, but I guess that is not > hard to fix, if that goes away. > This is not going away nor it is being changed at all. Just the usage of t5/* modules are changing a little bit. > It would not be an impossible/crazy task to manually rewrite our affected > code, especially not if we have a good recipe on how to do it. > The recipe is easy and it's already included in my original message. :) Thanks for your feedback! Cheers! -- Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo Software developer/engineer Apache Tapestry consultant, committer and project management committee member You can sponsor my work on Tapestry at https://github.com/sponsors/machina-br
