[xwiki-devs] [Idea] Bundle jQuery ?
Hi devs, Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE. If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience. An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery. What do you think ? Jerome
+1 We are missing out a lot by not offering a supported way of using jQuery in XWiki. Thanks, Eduard On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
Depends. Do you think we would loose much in performances if it's done as a JSX compared to integrated to the WAR ? The idea sounds better in theory if we don't plan to use it ourself in XE at least. Another good thing with extension is that it would make easier to have jQuery version you need for your extension and not have to wait that XE embeds it.
What do you think ?
+1 in general to make jQuery users life easier
Jerome _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 06/15/2012 08:28 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome
Using jQuery in XWiki is not a very easy task, so indeed it's a good idea to provide our own integration known to work. Personally I'm not a fan of jQuery, but I agree that it's the most popular JS framework, and most JS widgets/libraries are built on top of it, so you have my +1. Packaging, I think that it should be placed on the filesystem in resources/js/jquery/, it shouldn't be used by default, and we try to bundle the most recent version available at the time of the release. If someone needs a more recent version, they should update XWiki as well. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/15/2012 08:28 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome
Using jQuery in XWiki is not a very easy task, so indeed it's a good idea to provide our own integration known to work.
Personally I'm not a fan of jQuery, but I agree that it's the most popular JS framework, and most JS widgets/libraries are built on top of it, so you have my +1.
Not a huge fan either, though there are some interesting things prototype does not have, like the "live" observers.
Packaging, I think that it should be placed on the filesystem in resources/js/jquery/, it shouldn't be used by default, and we try to bundle the most recent version available at the time of the release. If someone needs a more recent version, they should update XWiki as well.
When you say bundled, you mean its script tag in the rendered pages ? Or just present in the resources/ folder on the FS ? I would say, script tag included, otherwise it does not solve much. Jerome
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
-- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/
On 07/02/2012 01:32 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/15/2012 08:28 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome
Using jQuery in XWiki is not a very easy task, so indeed it's a good idea to provide our own integration known to work.
Personally I'm not a fan of jQuery, but I agree that it's the most popular JS framework, and most JS widgets/libraries are built on top of it, so you have my +1.
Not a huge fan either, though there are some interesting things prototype does not have, like the "live" observers.
Packaging, I think that it should be placed on the filesystem in resources/js/jquery/, it shouldn't be used by default, and we try to bundle the most recent version available at the time of the release. If someone needs a more recent version, they should update XWiki as well.
When you say bundled, you mean its script tag in the rendered pages ? Or just present in the resources/ folder on the FS ?
When I say "bundled", I mean that it's going to be present in the resources directory in the XE builds.
I would say, script tag included, otherwise it does not solve much.
I'm not sure yet... On one hand I agree that it's not really going to solve the problem if users have to use a specific jsfx call with parameters to get it working, but on the other hand loading a pretty significant JS library all the time just for some potential custom extensions isn't a smart move for performance. I would prefer a very simple mechanism to trigger the activation of jQuery, but I can't find one simple and generic enough. The most basic thing would be to hard-code some behavior in the JSFX plugin implementation, so that a simple $jsfx.use('jquery') would use the right path and the right parameters (defer=false), and make sure that one is listed before the other extensions.
Jerome
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery). However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too). So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that. BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache) So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX. Thanks -Vincent
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory. What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time. In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory.
What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time.
In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource.
Sure there is things to do but what I said is that it require changes in the platform itself before doing something in EM. I just don't have time to look at it yet.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 06/18/2012 04:11 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory.
What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time.
In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource.
Sure there is things to do but what I said is that it require changes in the platform itself before doing something in EM. I just don't have time to look at it yet.
I think we should put some thought into whether we want to provide relatively raw filesystem access, there are some questions which it brings up like how do we support clustering? IMO it's a pretty important architectual decision. Thanks, Caleb
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Jun 18, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
On 06/18/2012 04:11 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory.
What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time.
In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource.
Sure there is things to do but what I said is that it require changes in the platform itself before doing something in EM. I just don't have time to look at it yet.
I think we should put some thought into whether we want to provide relatively raw filesystem access, there are some questions which it brings up like how do we support clustering? IMO it's a pretty important architectual decision.
Sure but it's not very different from what we already do with extensions ATM. Thanks -Vincent
Thanks,
Caleb
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/18/2012 04:11 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory.
What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time.
In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource.
Sure there is things to do but what I said is that it require changes in the platform itself before doing something in EM. I just don't have time to look at it yet.
I think we should put some thought into whether we want to provide relatively raw filesystem access, there are some questions which it brings up like how do we support clustering? IMO it's a pretty important architectual decision.
We already have extensions on the filesystem. What happen is that when you execute a EM request it's sent to all the members of the cluster.
Thanks,
Caleb
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 06/18/2012 03:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Actually it is possible, jsrx offers files from inside jars.
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/18/2012 03:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too).
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Actually it is possible, jsrx offers files from inside jars.
That's for on demand skin extensions but Vincent was talking about installing a full filesystem skin or adding more things in resources/ folder.
So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that.
BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache)
So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
Thanks -Vincent
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
+1 Thanks, Marius On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+1 Best Regards, /Andreas 2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs .
Hi, +1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today. Guillaume On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
Best Regards,
/Andreas
2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome ______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs> .
______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
Good day, One of the strongest "as-sure-as-possible" +1 I ever had to share with you. Fully on board since I tried this on my own and ran into a few issues when I tried to go beyond the basics. Let me know if and how I can contribute to this, for me it's close to a Christmas present: it would allow to deploy a series of essential / classic extensions and be able to both suggest and implement on my own solutions based on the plethora of plugins based on jQ. Thank you Jerome for the initiative! On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi,
+1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today.
Guillaume
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
Best Regards,
/Andreas
2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
extensions
bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome ______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<; http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs> .
______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<; http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Ionut MAXIM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Web Designer @ XWiki SAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +40755120711 | www.xwiki.com
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Ionut Maxim wrote:
Good day,
One of the strongest "as-sure-as-possible" +1 I ever had to share with you.
Fully on board since I tried this on my own and ran into a few issues when I tried to go beyond the basics.
Let me know if and how I can contribute to this, for me it's close to a Christmas present: it would allow to deploy a series of essential / classic extensions and be able to both suggest and implement on my own solutions based on the plethora of plugins based on jQ.
Thank you Jerome for the initiative!
Ionut, btw you can already do this by installing this extension which brings JQuery 1.7.2 for you: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/jQuery+Helpers So if you package a new extension all you have to do ATM is to mark the jquery helpers extension as a dependency and it'll get installed automatically when users install your extension. Thanks -Vincent
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi,
+1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today.
Guillaume
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
Best Regards,
/Andreas
2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
extensions
bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
On 06/18/2012 05:21 AM, Ionut Maxim wrote:
Good day,
One of the strongest "as-sure-as-possible" +1 I ever had to share with you.
Fully on board since I tried this on my own and ran into a few issues when I tried to go beyond the basics.
Let me know if and how I can contribute to this, for me it's close to a Christmas present: it would allow to deploy a series of essential / classic extensions and be able to both suggest and implement on my own solutions based on the plethora of plugins based on jQ.
Thank you Jerome for the initiative!
Well, even if jQuery will be bundled in the platform, this doesn't mean that we'll start using it. It's just there for third party extension writers, but for the official platform Prototype will continue to be the official library, at least for the short future.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi,
+1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today.
Guillaume
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
Best Regards,
/Andreas
2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
extensions
bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
I know, I wasn't expecting magic to happen over night. A smooth base is welcomed, steps ahead on a designer friendly path are a plus for sure. Glad to see all the support thus far. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/18/2012 05:21 AM, Ionut Maxim wrote:
Good day,
One of the strongest "as-sure-as-possible" +1 I ever had to share with you.
Fully on board since I tried this on my own and ran into a few issues when I tried to go beyond the basics.
Let me know if and how I can contribute to this, for me it's close to a Christmas present: it would allow to deploy a series of essential / classic extensions and be able to both suggest and implement on my own solutions based on the plethora of plugins based on jQ.
Thank you Jerome for the initiative!
Well, even if jQuery will be bundled in the platform, this doesn't mean that we'll start using it. It's just there for third party extension writers, but for the official platform Prototype will continue to be the official library, at least for the short future.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]
wrote:
Hi,
+1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today.
Guillaume
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
Best Regards,
/Andreas
2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions developers to integrate such scripts ? Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
extensions
bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page
loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
Jerome
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
-- Ionut MAXIM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Web Designer @ XWiki SAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +40755120711 | www.xwiki.com
participants (10)
-
Andreas Jonsson -
Caleb James DeLisle -
Eduard Moraru -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Ionut Maxim -
Jerome Velociter -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol