We just did a client-side tech stack evaluation and we chose Prototype over
jQuery, dojo, and YUI mainly for the ease of development, lack of a widget
(or dijit) library and to get the OOP-styled programming we're looking for
we included prototype.js directly after inheritance.js - anticipating that
2.0 will include a similar approach to inheritance that inheritance.js uses.
If you need help with on the scripting side, lemme know.
On 9/21/07, Dan Labrecque <Dan.Labrecque_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> We're not using Prototype exclusively, but there are a few key functions
> we take advantage of. For example, Prototype helps us evaluate JavaScript
> separately from HTML (necessary to render on IE). Although we are using
> Dojo's inheritance, it does not provide everything we need in a JavaScript
> library. In fact, they have taken away some key features in .9 and I'm
> scrambling to replace them. That said, even if Woodstock abandoned
> Prototype, it is still used by JSF Extensions for Ajax support.
>
> Dan
>
> Jason Suplizio wrote:
>
> For the record, I seriously don't want to go through the trouble of doing
> this at all. From both a maintenance and upgrade path perspective its going
> to be a headache. I've been given the task to determine how this can be
> done. I was thinking of doing exactly what Richard and Dan suggested, I'm
> going to do a little POC now as we may be forced to doing something like
> this.
>
> Dan...Woodstock's usage of dojo was one of the reasons we selected the
> library as standard (and the separation of the styles via the theme jar) and
> our developers will be leveraging the dojo library that you've included in
> the distribution. Consequently, I'm very eager to see you migrate everything
> to dojo .9 since .4 is going to end up abandoned soon
>
> Regarding JavaScript, have you considered using only dojo and removing the
> Prototype dependency? Where and why are you using Prototype? I like coding
> against Prototype but its inheritance structure is very sloppy (compared to
> dojo's) and it modifies some global objects (like Array).
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On 9/21/07, richard ratta < Richard.Ratta_at_sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > The easiest but not completely enforcible, is to create your out tld.
> >
> > Define a tld that has only the JSP tags you want page authors to use.
> > Define your own prefix to map to this tld.
> >
> > You have to realize that all the components are available and can be
> > rendered
> > in the page via Java in a managed bean.
> >
> > But with a "custom" tld a JSP author cannot include a tag that is not in
> > the tld.
> >
> > Get the original tld out of the webui-jsf.jar and edit it to taste as a
> > "custom" tld
> > as described above.
> >
> > Or edit the original tld and update the jar with it and then you can use
> > the same
> > prefix as the distribution.
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > Jason Suplizio wrote:
> >
> > > Allow me ask this another way: can we use only those components we
> > > choose and prevent the page authors from using components that we
> > > explicitly do not want them to use - for usability reasons (that only
> > > our usability people understand).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On 9/21/07, *Dan Labrecque* < Dan.Labrecque_at_sun.com
> > > <mailto: Dan.Labrecque_at_sun.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Woodstock currently loads some common JavaScript by default, but
> > > not for all components. In fact, the Dojo packaging mechanism is
> > > used to selectively load JavaScript. For example, if you are not
> > > using a Woodstock table, you won't see that particular JavaScript
> > > loaded in the page.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > Padraig Byrne wrote:
> > >
> > >> One this note can we selectively load only displayed components.
> > >> Seems by looking @console in firefox that code for all are loaded
> > >> by woodstock head tag even if unused in page
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > >> From: Jason Suplizio < suplizio_at_gmail.com> <mailto:suplizio_at_gmail.com
> > >
> > >> To: dev_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> > >> <mailto:dev_at_woodstock.dev.java.net>; users_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> > >> <mailto: users_at_woodstock.dev.java.net>
> > >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1:00:48 AM
> > >> Subject: disabling components
> > >>
> > >> Hello,
> > >> Our usability team would like to include most of the Woodstock
> > >> components but would like to somehow keep developers/page authors
> > >> from using a few of these. Is there any way that we can disable a
> > >> component or prevent their usage w/out modifying the
> > distribution?
> > >>
> > >> What do you recommend?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks in advance,
> > >> Jason
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Ganhdi
> > >>
> > >> "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how
> > >> justified, is not a crime. "
> > >> Earnest Hemingway
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Ganhdi
> > >
> > > "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is
> > > not a crime. "
> > > Earnest Hemingway
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Ganhdi
>
> "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not
> a crime. "
> Earnest Hemingway
>
>
>
--
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Ganhdi
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a
crime. "
Earnest Hemingway