django and dojo, what is the status ?
bon...@gmail.com
included in django 0.92 yet I failed to find it in the 0.95 release.
Does anyone know the status of it ?
regards
Russell Keith-Magee
>
> I googled and found some messages/blogs that dojo is supposed to be
> included in django 0.92 yet I failed to find it in the 0.95 release.
I don't know where you read that, but Dojo is _not_ going to be
included in Django.
Django is, and will remain AJAX toolkit agnostic. Django is a
framework for building server-side web-based applications - it is up
to the website designer to pick appropriate client-side toolkits. Dojo
is one of these client-side toolkits, but there are just too many
toolkits, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, to officially
bless any one of them.
Wherever possible, we will add features to Django that make it easier
to use these Javascript toolkits. For example, the serialization
framework was added to make it easier to serve dynamic
XMLHttpRequests. Any suggestions on how to improve these capabilities
are greatfully accepted. However, these suggestions should be generic
in nature, rather than suggesting integration with a specific toolkit.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
limodou
yourself. I suggest jQuery is a good stuff. I use it very funny.
jQuery: http://www.jquery.com
--
I like python!
UliPad <<The Python Editor>>: http://wiki.woodpecker.org.cn/moin/UliPad
My Blog: http://www.donews.net/limodou
bon...@gmail.com
this is what I googled which made me confused.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.dojo.user/3603
Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> On 12/18/06, bon...@gmail.com <bon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I googled and found some messages/blogs that dojo is supposed to be
>> included in django 0.92 yet I failed to find it in the 0.95 release.
>
> I don't know where you read that, but Dojo is _not_ going to be
> included in Django.
At one point, I thought about using Dojo for some improvements in Django's
admin interface; this would have meant such an inclusion. To make a long
story short... it didn't really work :)
Even if it had happened, however, it wouldn't really have changed anything
about you'd *use* Django; I'm not really sure what "including" Dojo would gain
you over downloading it separately (besides saving a minute or two).
Jacob
bon...@gmail.com
it and found it didn't work, I would rather not to spend the effort as
I would assume there must be some technical difficulties.
It won't change anything about whether I would use django(that depends
on the kind of project, right tool for the right task) but do remind me
that if my particular project may call for django/dojo interaction, I
have to think it twice.
Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> I would say it does make a difference. If a lead developer wanted to do
> it and found it didn't work, I would rather not to spend the effort as
> I would assume there must be some technical difficulties.
>
> It won't change anything about whether I would use django(that depends
> on the kind of project, right tool for the right task) but do remind me
> that if my particular project may call for django/dojo interaction, I
> have to think it twice.
What I'm really trying to say is this: please don't read anything into my
choice not to bundle use Dojo. As it turned out, the bit I thought I needed it
for -- a replacement for edit-inline -- is on hold while we rewrite the forms
package anyway, and chances are that by the time I get back to it something a
lot more lightweight will be more appropriate.
I'm really uncomfortable when people use my choices as a proxy for evaluating
their own situations; that's why I'm opposed to the idea of an "official"
Django front-end component.
If you need help choosing a JavaScript toolkit, there are *many* people
smarter than me to take your cues from -- but again, ideally you'd make the
choice yourself based on what works best for you.
Jacob
James Bennett
> At one point, I thought about using Dojo for some improvements in Django's
> admin interface; this would have meant such an inclusion. To make a long
> story short... it didn't really work :)
Yeah, and my short-lived attempt to port our existing JS over to
Dojo-style packages didn't exactly work either.
> Even if it had happened, however, it wouldn't really have changed anything
> about you'd *use* Django; I'm not really sure what "including" Dojo would gain
> you over downloading it separately (besides saving a minute or two).
And in the case of Dojo, I'm not even sure that bundling it is a
useful option for any framework; honestly, I'd rather get it off a CDN
and take advantage of the cross-domain goodness.
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin