Javascript library
Jörn Zaefferer
I'd like to know the combination of prototype and scriptacolous is
settled for lift for now or if that is still a work in progress. I've
heard from a lot of people who were unhappy with Rails settling on
that combo. Their library of choice is jQuery, and so is mine. In
addition, I'm one of the developers of jQuery, and have an interest in
getting jQuery adopted where appropiate. I can offer direct support
and I know the rest of the jQuery team, I'm sure they too are
interested in getting jQuery adopted by a very interesting web
framework like lift.
If you haven't heard anything about jQuery yet:
http://jquery.com/
There are already quite a few projects using jQuery, though no web
framework running on the JVM yet:
http://docs.jquery.com/Sites_Using_jQuery
Opinions, ideas?
Regards
Jörn
David Pollak
The decision is still very "work in progress."
I think the core jQuery is very good code and have had a lot more success with it for AJAX/Comet plumbing that I have had with Scriptaculous/Prototype. Just a side note, I did 18 months of Rails coding before starting the lift project. I had come to know the Scriptaculous stuff pretty well. The jQuery approach struck me as instantly better and the actual use of the library has also been much better.
The problem with jQuery is the jQuery UI stuff. It's, to be polite, weak. Calling something 1.0 when it only works on Firefox is a questionable tactic. The Interface Elements for jQuery was a similarly weak library from a browser compatibility standpoint. On the other hand, Scriptaculous works great for Drag & Drop and some other UI stuff across Firefox 1.x & 2, Opera 9, IE 6 & 7, and Safari 2 (The 1.7 stuff doesn't work well in Safari 3, but that's a known issue and there are known patches to get around the issue.)
If the upcoming jQuery UI 1.1 works across the list of supported browsers, that will be a strong positive indicator for me. If it doesn't work across all the supported browsers (especially on my G3 iBook running Safari 2 and Firefox 1), that will be a strong negative. If there's a single message to bring back to the jQuery team from me: spend more time to get the compatibility right because calling something anything other than an alpha when the code fails on the majority of nominally supported browsers significantly decreases credibility of the project.
There's a further issue that I have with the jQuery community process. All the posts to the newsgroup are moderated. This is a problem for two reasons: (1) censorship and (2) timeliness. I made a post to the jQuery group suggesting that jQuery abandon the $. It was censored. It contained what I consider to be a rational discussion: is saving a few keystrokes worth the incompatibility issues raised with Scriptaculous. Yes, I know about compatibility mode. Yes, I know about how passing jQuery into the function that defines what a library is supposed to do, but not all the packages in the jQuery repository do that. From the lift framework perspective, forcing a company to use jQuery and excluding Scriptaculous (which is the net effect of $) is costly from an adoption perspective. Censoring the discussion left a really bad taste in my mouth. The second issue is timeliness. If I do a post, I don't want to have to check back 3 times a day to see if the post has been vetted before I can set the "email me on change" flag on the post.
So, in my ideal world, lift would by default support jQuery and jQuery UI, but in a way that does not foreclose on the use of Scriptaculous. But, as a practical matter, I've gotta ship CircleShare and make it great. I burned 2 days last week trying to get jQuery and Scriptaculous working together so I could get D&D support from Scriptaculous. So, I'm driven by practicalities right now and the practicalities are pretty much dependent on the quality of jQuery UI 1.1.
Thanks,
David
lift, the secure, simple, powerful web framework
http://liftweb.net
Jörn Zaefferer
On Oct 14, 8:14 pm, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jörn,
>
> The decision is still very "work in progress."
Well, at least that is something we can build on :-)
>
> I think the core jQuery is very good code and have had a lot more success
> with it for AJAX/Comet plumbing that I have had with
> Scriptaculous/Prototype. Just a side note, I did 18 months of Rails coding
> before starting the lift project. I had come to know the Scriptaculous
> stuff pretty well. The jQuery approach struck me as instantly better and
> the actual use of the library has also been much better.
Thats good to know.
> The problem with jQuery is the jQuery UI stuff. It's, to be polite, weak.
> Calling something 1.0 when it only works on Firefox is a questionable
> tactic. The Interface Elements for jQuery was a similarly weak library from
> a browser compatibility standpoint. On the other hand, Scriptaculous works
> great for Drag & Drop and some other UI stuff across Firefox 1.x & 2, Opera
> 9, IE 6 & 7, and Safari 2 (The 1.7 stuff doesn't work well in Safari 3, but
> that's a known issue and there are known patches to get around the issue.) [...]
You are absolutely right about that. The good news: jQuery UI 1.1 has
the sole purpose of making an actual release with compability across
browsers. There is only one, if at all, new component added. We
definitely need to get the quality of the jQuery core into UI.
Another problem we have to tackle: Interface was mostly a one-man
project, too small. UI is rather a 15 man project, too big. Nearly the
entire team will meet at the jQueryCamp after the AJAX experience in
Boston, that may help to tackle a few communication problems.
> There's a further issue that I have with the jQuery community process. All
> the posts to the newsgroup are moderated. This is a problem for two
> reasons: (1) censorship and (2) timeliness. I made a post to the jQuery
> group suggesting that jQuery abandon the $. It was censored. It contained
> what I consider to be a rational discussion: is saving a few keystrokes
> worth the incompatibility issues raised with Scriptaculous. Yes, I know
> about compatibility mode. Yes, I know about how passing jQuery into the
> function that defines what a library is supposed to do, but not all the
> packages in the jQuery repository do that. From the lift framework
> perspective, forcing a company to use jQuery and excluding Scriptaculous
> (which is the net effect of $) is costly from an adoption perspective.
> Censoring the discussion left a really bad taste in my mouth. The second
> issue is timeliness. If I do a post, I don't want to have to check back 3
> times a day to see if the post has been vetted before I can set the "email
> me on change" flag on the post.
Sorry to hear that. I'm sure there was no intention to censor
anything, the problem here is spam. The main jQuery discussion list is
very active (more then 100 posts a day) and needs moderation to tackle
spam. Unfortunately the google groups moderation interface is weak and
slow, it takes a lot of time to moderate messages. It takes even more
time to get non-spammers out of the moderation queue, along their
posts to come through directly. And there is no way to set the
threshold until a new member isn't moderated anymore lower.
Now, in this case, it looks like someone indicdently removed your
post. But that shouldn't stop you from bringing your topic up on the
list again. Please post it again on the dev list (http://
groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev), it won't get lost there.
I'll be posting this thread to the UI list, so someone from the UI
team can get on board of the discussion.
Regards
Jörn
David Pollak
The problem with jQuery is the jQuery UI stuff. It's, to be polite, weak. Calling something 1.0 when it only works on Firefox is a questionable tactic. The Interface Elements for jQuery was a similarly weak library from a browser compatibility standpoint. On the other hand, Scriptaculous works great for Drag & Drop and some other UI stuff across Firefox 1.x & 2, Opera 9, IE 6 & 7, and Safari 2 (The 1.7 stuff doesn't work well in Safari 3, but that's a known issue and there are known patches to get around the issue.) [...]You are absolutely right about that. The good news: jQuery UI 1.1 has the sole purpose of making an actual release with compability across browsers. There is only one, if at all, new component added. We definitely need to get the quality of the jQuery core into UI
If it lives up to this goal, then I think it'll be a slam dunk for it to be the default JavaScript library in lift.
Thanks,
David
Rey Bango
My name is Rey Bango and I'm a member of the jQuery project. It sounds
like you've had a couple of rough outings with jQuery and hopefully we
can get them sorted out.
To address your concerns about the moderated groups, I believe that
Jörn has done an excellent job of explaining the situation we're in.
As you can imagine, containing spammers is a daunting task and the
only way we've been able to handle that is through the use of
moderation features. Mind you, the moderation features are supposed to
be automatic but at times, Google's code doesn't quite manage it as
it's supposed to. That's why you experienced the long wait. We do have
several mods watching for this and we do our best to get users that
are stuck approved as quickly as possible. Rest assured that we don't
censor anyone, even folks from other projects. We've had folks from
PT, MooTools, Ext and YUI all come in, sometimes not on the best
terms, and we've never deleted any of their messages. I would venture
to say that your post about the "$" namespace was just stuck in limbo.
If you could repost your message, I'll be happy to ensure that it goes
through and that you receive proper attention.
As for jQuery UI, the team's exclusive focus for v1.1 has been browser
compatibility and bug fixes. The release of v1.0 certainly taught us a
few things and we've taken steps to ensure that a release like that
doesn't happen again.
As you can see, the fact that two lead jQuery team members have come
onto here to reply shows that we're very dedicated to the jQuery
community and want to ensure that you have a positive experience. We
look forward to working with you.
Rey Bango
jQuery Project Team
On Oct 14, 2:14 pm, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
wrote:
David Pollak
Rey Bango wrote:
No worries. I took Jorn's post at face value and am following his advice (as we speak) of reposting. I have not had to deal with post spam, but deal with 10,000+ pieces of spam in my personal inbox (I've been using this email address for posting to net news since 1991 and it's probably on every spam list in existence.) I understand the reason and understand that things slip through the cracks. I'm sorry my post way one of those, but I am totally cool now that I understand what happened.Hi David, To address your concerns about the moderated groups, I believe that Jörn has done an excellent job of explaining the situation we're in. As you can imagine, containing spammers is a daunting task and the only way we've been able to handle that is through the use of moderation features. Mind you, the moderation features are supposed to be automatic but at times, Google's code doesn't quite manage it as it's supposed to. That's why you experienced the long wait. We do have several mods watching for this and we do our best to get users that are stuck approved as quickly as possible. Rest assured that we don't censor anyone, even folks from other projects. We've had folks from PT, MooTools, Ext and YUI all come in, sometimes not on the best terms, and we've never deleted any of their messages. I would venture to say that your post about the "$" namespace was just stuck in limbo. If you could repost your message, I'll be happy to ensure that it goes through and that you receive proper attention.
As for jQuery UI, the team's exclusive focus for v1.1 has been browser compatibility and bug fixes. The release of v1.0 certainly taught us a few things and we've taken steps to ensure that a release like that doesn't happen again.
As you can see, the fact that two lead jQuery team members have come onto here to reply shows that we're very dedicated to the jQuery community and want to ensure that you have a positive experience. We look forward to working with you.
Thanks!
David
Rey Bango
Glad to see that you posted on the jQuery dev list. We'll do our best
to address your concerns.
In terms of "making nice", well that's just the way I am. :)
Rey