27 Feb
2014
27 Feb
'14
3:46 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
<gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the
same $ global variable.
How do we deal with it?
Don't use global variables. Use AMD (require.js).
Thanks,
Marius
2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>lu>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James
DeLisle <cjd(a)hyperboria.ca
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs wrote:
Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating
away from prototype but I
don't
know what this vote is about.
This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort we
can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is
a
performance issue.
If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
and
only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor
all of our code to deal
with
it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for
the
user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
about
jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery
and
disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
is
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.org>
wrote:
>> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>>
>
>> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
>> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
>
> +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
> code written in Prototype.js .
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>>
>> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
>>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marius
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>>> <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>>>> <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Caty
>
> --
> Sergiu Dumitriu
> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs