uses cases for collaborative tools on top of xwiki
Hi everyone, At http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Idea/UsecasesforCoW I have written the use cases of my project at XWiki. Please send me any remarks you might have about it. I am planning to implement most of the drawing functionalities with Dojo toolkit, but there are some problems with the differences between handling vectorial drawing in IE and mozilla (one uses vml, the other svg). If you have some advice for me in order to overcome these problems, please do not be reluctant in paying it to me. All the best. Ioana Boureanu
Hi Ioana, On May 21, 2007, at 11:50 PM, ioana boureanu wrote:
Hi everyone,
At http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Idea/UsecasesforCoW I have written the use cases of my project at XWiki.
Please send me any remarks you might have about it.
I am planning to implement most of the drawing functionalities with Dojo toolkit, but there are some problems with the differences between handling vectorial drawing in IE and mozilla (one uses vml, the other svg). If you have some advice for me in order to overcome these problems, please do not be reluctant in paying it to me.
Sorry I haven't checked your proposal yet. However the mention of "Dojo" made me think. We're currently using Prototype in XWiki and I was tempted to add JQuery as there is a plugin I'm interested in using. Now you mention Dojo. That's starting to make a lot of framework in the same space :-) So my question to all of us: - do we mind? - is it ok to include several dhtml/ajax fwk? Isn't it going to weight too much? Can we selectively decide to include only some fwk (somehow)? - will we be having compatibility issues? (fwiw I've checked and it seems jquery can be used with prototype if we're careful enough (http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries) I personally haven't used these fwks so I don't have any recommendation at all. Funnily I've just come across this article this morning (http://www.mrbool.com/articles/viewcomp.asp?comp=5311) but it didn't really help... WDYT? Thanks -Vincent
This is kind of a thread hijack, Vincent. Indeed, there's a mess in the JS as well, as in the whole skin (the view part of XWiki). Two years ago there was no framework used, while last year we found prototype, scriptaculous, rico and our own AJAX wrapper + DHTML functions. And now we're going to add JQuery and Dojo, too. Here's my view on the matter: - Scriptaculous isn't used. We should seek if there are any references to it, and remove it. - Our own implementation should be pruned, meaning that we need to identify which functions are needed and are not provided by another framework, rewritten using a framework, and the stuff we don't need should be removed. - Rico is used mainly because when Marta added some skin dynamic features, it was already there, and she didn't feel like adding another fwk or writing her own implementation. If we decide to replace it with another fwk, then the only problem is that skins based on the current finch or albatross won't be easily upgradeable. - Prototype is used by Rico. I don't think we're using it very much, so it can be removed. - JQuery looks like a smaller alternative for simple skin needs. Either we keep Rico, or we switch to JQuery, it's just a matter of choice. - Dojo should be used for things that require complex interaction; it isn't needed for small things like the accordions or collapseable panels. But for a collaborative graphical editor, it's better to use it than make our own methods. So Dojo has its uses, and JQuery/Rico/Prototype has other uses. However, it includes the basic functionalities as a subset, and even some useful widgets. So the only reason why we should not switch completely to Dojo is that it takes longer to download and it requires more startup time. In conclusion, we can add Dojo for the advanced editor, and keep only one of Rico/JQuery/Prototype for simple skin needs. Sergiu On 5/22/07, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry I haven't checked your proposal yet. However the mention of "Dojo" made me think. We're currently using Prototype in XWiki and I was tempted to add JQuery as there is a plugin I'm interested in using. Now you mention Dojo. That's starting to make a lot of framework in the same space :-)
So my question to all of us: - do we mind? - is it ok to include several dhtml/ajax fwk? Isn't it going to weight too much? Can we selectively decide to include only some fwk (somehow)? - will we be having compatibility issues? (fwiw I've checked and it seems jquery can be used with prototype if we're careful enough (http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries)
I personally haven't used these fwks so I don't have any recommendation at all. Funnily I've just come across this article this morning (http://www.mrbool.com/articles/viewcomp.asp?comp=5311) but it didn't really help...
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
Hi, I agree we really need to keep JS libraries down to a maximum. However concerning Ioana's project, I would really like to have Google Web Toolkit considerer. GTW allows to much better handle the relationship with the XWiki Core and to organize the code much better. It also allows to write unit tests. It is also very well suited for event drivent applications.. While it's true that we might not find SVG/VML/Drawing apis in GWT but we can wrap a library in GWT so that we can write the rest of the code in GWT I'm currently finishing a base XWiki GWT Application providing some client services (in addition to the server services already available in the trunk). Ludovic Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
This is kind of a thread hijack, Vincent.
Indeed, there's a mess in the JS as well, as in the whole skin (the view part of XWiki). Two years ago there was no framework used, while last year we found prototype, scriptaculous, rico and our own AJAX wrapper + DHTML functions. And now we're going to add JQuery and Dojo, too. Here's my view on the matter:
- Scriptaculous isn't used. We should seek if there are any references to it, and remove it. - Our own implementation should be pruned, meaning that we need to identify which functions are needed and are not provided by another framework, rewritten using a framework, and the stuff we don't need should be removed. - Rico is used mainly because when Marta added some skin dynamic features, it was already there, and she didn't feel like adding another fwk or writing her own implementation. If we decide to replace it with another fwk, then the only problem is that skins based on the current finch or albatross won't be easily upgradeable. - Prototype is used by Rico. I don't think we're using it very much, so it can be removed. - JQuery looks like a smaller alternative for simple skin needs. Either we keep Rico, or we switch to JQuery, it's just a matter of choice. - Dojo should be used for things that require complex interaction; it isn't needed for small things like the accordions or collapseable panels. But for a collaborative graphical editor, it's better to use it than make our own methods. So Dojo has its uses, and JQuery/Rico/Prototype has other uses. However, it includes the basic functionalities as a subset, and even some useful widgets. So the only reason why we should not switch completely to Dojo is that it takes longer to download and it requires more startup time.
In conclusion, we can add Dojo for the advanced editor, and keep only one of Rico/JQuery/Prototype for simple skin needs.
Sergiu
On 5/22/07, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry I haven't checked your proposal yet. However the mention of "Dojo" made me think. We're currently using Prototype in XWiki and I was tempted to add JQuery as there is a plugin I'm interested in using. Now you mention Dojo. That's starting to make a lot of framework in the same space :-)
So my question to all of us: - do we mind? - is it ok to include several dhtml/ajax fwk? Isn't it going to weight too much? Can we selectively decide to include only some fwk (somehow)? - will we be having compatibility issues? (fwiw I've checked and it seems jquery can be used with prototype if we're careful enough (http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries)
I personally haven't used these fwks so I don't have any recommendation at all. Funnily I've just come across this article this morning (http://www.mrbool.com/articles/viewcomp.asp?comp=5311) but it didn't really help...
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list. To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic
Hi Ioana, I think there are already some ways to do simple SVG drawing with GWT. You should check these links out: http://roberthanson.blogspot.com/2006/06/coding-svg-with-gwt.html http://gwt-widget.sourceforge.net/?q=search/node/SVG http://code.google.com/p/gwt-svg/ Regards, Catalin On 5/24/07, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I agree we really need to keep JS libraries down to a maximum. However concerning Ioana's project, I would really like to have Google Web Toolkit considerer. GTW allows to much better handle the relationship with the XWiki Core and to organize the code much better. It also allows to write unit tests. It is also very well suited for event drivent applications..
While it's true that we might not find SVG/VML/Drawing apis in GWT but we can wrap a library in GWT so that we can write the rest of the code in GWT
I'm currently finishing a base XWiki GWT Application providing some client services (in addition to the server services already available in the trunk).
Ludovic
Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
This is kind of a thread hijack, Vincent.
Indeed, there's a mess in the JS as well, as in the whole skin (the view part of XWiki). Two years ago there was no framework used, while last year we found prototype, scriptaculous, rico and our own AJAX wrapper + DHTML functions. And now we're going to add JQuery and Dojo, too. Here's my view on the matter:
- Scriptaculous isn't used. We should seek if there are any references to it, and remove it. - Our own implementation should be pruned, meaning that we need to identify which functions are needed and are not provided by another framework, rewritten using a framework, and the stuff we don't need should be removed. - Rico is used mainly because when Marta added some skin dynamic features, it was already there, and she didn't feel like adding another fwk or writing her own implementation. If we decide to replace it with another fwk, then the only problem is that skins based on the current finch or albatross won't be easily upgradeable. - Prototype is used by Rico. I don't think we're using it very much, so it can be removed. - JQuery looks like a smaller alternative for simple skin needs. Either we keep Rico, or we switch to JQuery, it's just a matter of choice. - Dojo should be used for things that require complex interaction; it isn't needed for small things like the accordions or collapseable panels. But for a collaborative graphical editor, it's better to use it than make our own methods. So Dojo has its uses, and JQuery/Rico/Prototype has other uses. However, it includes the basic functionalities as a subset, and even some useful widgets. So the only reason why we should not switch completely to Dojo is that it takes longer to download and it requires more startup time.
In conclusion, we can add Dojo for the advanced editor, and keep only one of Rico/JQuery/Prototype for simple skin needs.
Sergiu
On 5/22/07, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry I haven't checked your proposal yet. However the mention of "Dojo" made me think. We're currently using Prototype in XWiki and I was tempted to add JQuery as there is a plugin I'm interested in using. Now you mention Dojo. That's starting to make a lot of framework in the same space :-)
So my question to all of us: - do we mind? - is it ok to include several dhtml/ajax fwk? Isn't it going to weight too much? Can we selectively decide to include only some fwk (somehow)? - will we be having compatibility issues? (fwiw I've checked and it seems jquery can be used with prototype if we're careful enough (http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries)
I personally haven't used these fwks so I don't have any recommendation at all. Funnily I've just come across this article this morning (http://www.mrbool.com/articles/viewcomp.asp?comp=5311) but it didn't really help...
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list. To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic
-- You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list. To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
participants (5)
-
Catalin Hritcu -
ioana boureanu -
Ludovic Dubost -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol