[xwiki-devs] [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework
Hi devs, This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic. Thanks, Caty
+1 Now your email should also propose what “deprecation” means for prototype. We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we’d like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.org with a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected]) wrote: Hi devs, This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic. Thanks, Caty
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:
+1
Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.
Could be JQuery specific http://plugins.jquery.com/ or Bootstrap components http://getbootstrap.com/javascript/ (after/if we decide to integrate this framework). Thanks, Caty
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Also not sure if this should be discussed here or in another topic, since we are voting on JQuery and looking for replacement plugins maybe this means also the time to deprecate/remove scriptaculous/smartclient/yui. Thanks, Caty On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:
+1
Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.
Could be JQuery specific http://plugins.jquery.com/ or Bootstrap components http://getbootstrap.com/javascript/ (after/if we decide to integrate this framework).
Thanks, Caty
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:
+1
Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.
I've created http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel free to contribute to it. Thanks, Caty
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+1, with a preference for Bootstrap plugins when available, since we target a bootstrap skin. Other plugins should probably require a proposal on this ML. Thanks, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]
wrote:
+1
Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.
I've created http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel free to contribute to it.
Thanks, Caty
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected]
)
wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
+1! 2014-02-25 14:07 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>:
+1, with a preference for Bootstrap plugins when available, since we target a bootstrap skin. Other plugins should probably require a proposal on this ML.
Thanks,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]
wrote:
+1
Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
We have several options but I think the most sensible one is: * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.
I've created http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel free to contribute to it.
Thanks, Caty
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (
wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+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. 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I don't know what this vote is about. 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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]>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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is intended for this particular topic.
Thanks, Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable. How do we deal with it? 2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]
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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi devs, > > This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
is
> intended for this particular topic. > > Thanks, > Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote:
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable. How do we deal with it?
AFAIK, Bootstrap does not depends on $, but use the window.jQuery global variable. Of course, Bootstrap is not an AMD module, you may use it with requirejs with the shim feature. Since, we already use jQuery with require.js, I do not see any problem to make them work side-by-side with prototype. We can probably improve our performance by benefiting of jQuery and Bootstrap CDN distribution, with a local fallback. Here is a possible configuration: http://stackoverflow.com/a/13498856/537790 Thanks,
2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]
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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is >> intended for this particular topic. >> >> Thanks, >> Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote:
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable. How do we deal with it?
AFAIK, Bootstrap does not depends on $, but use the window.jQuery global variable. Of course, Bootstrap is not an AMD module, you may use it with requirejs with the shim feature. Since, we already use jQuery with require.js, I do not see any problem to make them work side-by-side with prototype.
Yes, you can load Bootstrap using require.js . I did it when I played with Bootstrap a few months ago.
We can probably improve our performance by benefiting of jQuery and Bootstrap CDN distribution, with a local fallback. Here is a possible configuration:
I did this but Caleb didn't like it because of http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9355 so we revert it. Thanks, Marius
Thanks,
2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]
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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]> 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) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is >>> intended for this particular topic. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]
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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
is
>> intended for this particular topic. >> >> Thanks, >> Caty
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 02/27/2014 02:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau wrote:
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable. How do we deal with it?
jQuery export as "$" is optional, and all code using jQuery is invited (best practice) to use the dollar outside the global namespace in a scope like this : (function($) { // here code that uses the dollar as jQuery. })(jQuery); Using AMD has the same effect of avoiding global names conflicts. Jérôme
2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]
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:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is >> intended for this particular topic. >> >> Thanks, >> Caty -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Jérôme Velociter +33 786 993 355 @jvelo Open source e-commerce and marketplaces made simple www.mayocat.org 46cl www.46cl.fr
participants (8)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Denis Gervalle -
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau -
Jérôme Velociter -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
vincent＠massol.net