[Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
Hi devs,

This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
intended for this particular topic.

Thanks,
Caty
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

vmassol
Administrator
+1

Now your email should also propose what “deprecation” means for prototype.

We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
* once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
* when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
* we should start listing JQuery components that we’d like to use (there are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.org with a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery one we wish to move to.

WDYT?

Thanks
-Vincent

On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([hidden email]) wrote:

Hi devs,  

This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is  
intended for this particular topic.  

Thanks,  
Caty  
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>wrote:

> +1
>
> Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
>
> We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
> * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
> * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI
> component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what
> it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
> * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there
> are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery
> one we wish to move to.
>

Could be JQuery specific http://plugins.jquery.com/ or Bootstrap components
http://getbootstrap.com/javascript/ (after/if we decide to integrate this
framework).

Thanks,
Caty


>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([hidden email])
> wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> intended for this particular topic.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
Also not sure if this should be discussed here or in another topic, since
we are voting on JQuery and looking for replacement plugins maybe this
means also the time to deprecate/remove scriptaculous/smartclient/yui.

Thanks,
Caty


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
>>
>> We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
>> * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
>> * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI
>> component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what
>> it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
>> * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there
>> are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery
>> one we wish to move to.
>>
>
> Could be JQuery specific http://plugins.jquery.com/ or Bootstrap
> components http://getbootstrap.com/javascript/ (after/if we decide to
> integrate this framework).
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
>
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([hidden email])
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
>> intended for this particular topic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
In reply to this post by vmassol
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>wrote:

> +1
>
> Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for prototype.
>
> We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
> * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
> * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI
> component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what
> it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
> * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there
> are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components and the JQuery
> one we wish to move to.
>

I've created
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel
free to contribute to it.

Thanks,
Caty


>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([hidden email])
> wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> intended for this particular topic.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Denis Gervalle-2
+1, with a preference for Bootstrap plugins when available, since we target
a bootstrap skin. Other plugins should probably require a proposal on this
ML.

Thanks,


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for
> prototype.
> >
> > We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
> > * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
> > * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI
> > component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze what
> > it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
> > * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use (there
> > are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on
> design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype components
> and the JQuery
> > one we wish to move to.
> >
>
> I've created
> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel
> free to contribute to it.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([hidden email]
> )
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> > intended for this particular topic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Caty
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>



--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
+1!


2014-02-25 14:07 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:

> +1, with a preference for Bootstrap plugins when available, since we target
> a bootstrap skin. Other plugins should probably require a proposal on this
> ML.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Now your email should also propose what "deprecation" means for
> > prototype.
> > >
> > > We have several options but I think the most sensible one is:
> > > * once the vote is passed, any new code should use JQuery
> > > * when some dev need to implement some new changes on an existing UI
> > > component based on prototype, he/she should take the time to analyze
> what
> > > it would cost to replace that component with a JQuery equivalent
> > > * we should start listing JQuery components that we'd like to use
> (there
> > > are plenty of them out there). Probably a design page on
> > design.xwiki.orgwith a table listing all our existing prototype
> components
> > and the JQuery
> > > one we wish to move to.
> > >
> >
> > I've created
> > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JQueryComponents . Feel
> > free to contribute to it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Caty
> >
> >
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > > On 25 Feb 2014 at 09:04:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (
> [hidden email]
> > )
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi devs,
> > >
> > > This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> > > intended for this particular topic.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Caty
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devs mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Marius Dumitru Florea
In reply to this post by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
+1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.

Thanks,
Marius

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> intended for this particular topic.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Marius Dumitru Florea
I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js

Thanks,
Marius

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
>> intended for this particular topic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Sergiu Dumitriu-3
+1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)

But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.

On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marius
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
>>> intended for this particular topic.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caty

--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Marius Dumitru Florea
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>

> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.

+1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
code written in Prototype.js .

Thanks,
Marius

>
> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marius
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marius
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Caty
>
> --
> Sergiu Dumitriu
> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Caleb James DeLisle-2
Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I don't
know what this vote is about.

Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is a
performance issue.

If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable and
only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal with
it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for the
user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking about
jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.

This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery and
disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.


Thanks,
Caleb


On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>>
>
>> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
>> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
>
> +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
> code written in Prototype.js .
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>>
>> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
>>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marius
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
>>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Caty
>>
>> --
>> Sergiu Dumitriu
>> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Denis Gervalle-2
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I don't
> know what this vote is about.
>

This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort we
can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.


>
> Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
> bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is a
> performance issue.
>
> If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable and
> only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
> with
> it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for
> the
> user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
> about
> jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
>
> This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery
> and
> disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Caleb
>
>
> On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
> >>
> >
> >> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
> >> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
> >
> > +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
> > code written in Prototype.js .
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marius
> >
> >>
> >> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> >>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
> >>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Marius
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
> >>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
> >>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Marius
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread is
> >>>>> intended for this particular topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Caty
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sergiu Dumitriu
> >> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devs mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>



--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable.
How do we deal with it?


2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I
> don't
> > know what this vote is about.
> >
>
> This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
> It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort we
> can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
> the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
>
>
> >
> > Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
> > bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is
> a
> > performance issue.
> >
> > If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
> and
> > only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
> > with
> > it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for
> > the
> > user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
> > about
> > jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
> >
> > This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery
> > and
> > disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Caleb
> >
> >
> > On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
> > >>
> > >
> > >> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
> > >> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
> > >
> > > +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
> > > code written in Prototype.js .
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Marius
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > >>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
> > >>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Marius
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> > >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
> > >>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
> > >>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Marius
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi devs,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
> is
> > >>>>> intended for this particular topic.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Caty
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sergiu Dumitriu
> > >> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> devs mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devs mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Denis Gervalle-2
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable.
> How do we deal with it?
>

AFAIK, Bootstrap does not depends on $, but use the window.jQuery global
variable. Of course, Bootstrap is not an AMD module, you may use it with
requirejs with the shim feature. Since, we already use jQuery with
require.js, I do not see any problem to make them work side-by-side with
prototype.

We can probably improve our performance by benefiting of jQuery and
Bootstrap CDN distribution, with a local fallback. Here is a possible
configuration:

http://stackoverflow.com/a/13498856/537790

Thanks,


>
>
> 2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I
> > don't
> > > know what this vote is about.
> > >
> >
> > This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
> > It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort
> we
> > can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
> > the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still
> be
> > > bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget
> is
> > a
> > > performance issue.
> > >
> > > If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
> > and
> > > only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
> > > with
> > > it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat
> for
> > > the
> > > user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
> > > about
> > > jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
> > >
> > > This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of
> jquery
> > > and
> > > disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Caleb
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we
> still
> > > >> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
> > > >
> > > > +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object
> oriented
> > > > code written in Prototype.js .
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Marius
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > > >>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we
> should
> > > >>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Marius
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> > > >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
> > > >>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
> > > >>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Marius
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> > > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi devs,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this
> thread
> > is
> > > >>>>> intended for this particular topic.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Caty
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sergiu Dumitriu
> > > >> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> devs mailing list
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > devs mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devs mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Denis Gervalle
> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>



--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Marius Dumitru Florea
In reply to this post by Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable.
> How do we deal with it?

Don't use global variables. Use AMD (require.js).

Thanks,
Marius

>
>
> 2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I
>> don't
>> > know what this vote is about.
>> >
>>
>> This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
>> It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort we
>> can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
>> the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
>> > bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is
>> a
>> > performance issue.
>> >
>> > If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
>> and
>> > only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
>> > with
>> > it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for
>> > the
>> > user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
>> > about
>> > jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
>> >
>> > This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery
>> > and
>> > disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Caleb
>> >
>> >
>> > On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
>> > >> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
>> > >
>> > > +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
>> > > code written in Prototype.js .
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Marius
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> > >>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
>> > >>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks,
>> > >>> Marius
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>> > >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>> > >>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>> > >>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Marius
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>> > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >>>>> Hi devs,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
>> is
>> > >>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>>> Caty
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Sergiu Dumitriu
>> > >> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> devs mailing list
>> > >> [hidden email]
>> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > devs mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devs mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Denis Gervalle
>> SOFTEC sa - CEO
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Marius Dumitru Florea
In reply to this post by Denis Gervalle-2
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable.
>> How do we deal with it?
>>
>
> AFAIK, Bootstrap does not depends on $, but use the window.jQuery global
> variable. Of course, Bootstrap is not an AMD module, you may use it with
> requirejs with the shim feature. Since, we already use jQuery with
> require.js, I do not see any problem to make them work side-by-side with
> prototype.

Yes, you can load Bootstrap using require.js . I did it when I played
with Bootstrap a few months ago.

> We can probably improve our performance by benefiting of jQuery and
> Bootstrap CDN distribution, with a local fallback. Here is a possible
> configuration:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/13498856/537790

I did this but Caleb didn't like it because of
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9355 so we revert it.

Thanks,
Marius

>
> Thanks,
>
>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I
>> > don't
>> > > know what this vote is about.
>> > >
>> >
>> > This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
>> > It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort
>> we
>> > can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
>> > the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still
>> be
>> > > bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget
>> is
>> > a
>> > > performance issue.
>> > >
>> > > If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
>> > and
>> > > only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
>> > > with
>> > > it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
>> > > about
>> > > jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
>> > >
>> > > This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of
>> jquery
>> > > and
>> > > disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Caleb
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we
>> still
>> > > >> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
>> > > >
>> > > > +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object
>> oriented
>> > > > code written in Prototype.js .
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Marius
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> > > >>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we
>> should
>> > > >>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > >>> Marius
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>> > > >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>> > > >>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>> > > >>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>> Marius
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>> > > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> Hi devs,
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this
>> thread
>> > is
>> > > >>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>> Caty
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Sergiu Dumitriu
>> > > >> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>> > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > >> devs mailing list
>> > > >> [hidden email]
>> > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > devs mailing list
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > devs mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Denis Gervalle
>> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devs mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Vote] Deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS framework

Jérôme Velociter
In reply to this post by Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
On 02/27/2014 02:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau wrote:
> The problem is, prototype and jQuery both share the same $ global variable.
> How do we deal with it?

jQuery export as "$" is optional, and all code using jQuery is invited
(best practice) to use the dollar outside the global namespace in a
scope like this :

(function($) {
   // here code that uses the dollar as jQuery.
})(jQuery);

Using AMD has the same effect of avoiding global names conflicts.

Jérôme

>
>
> 2014-02-26 18:57 GMT+01:00 Denis Gervalle <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>> Overall I'm generally in favor of migrating away from prototype but I
>> don't
>>> know what this vote is about.
>>>
>> This vote is about deprecating prototype.js in favor of jQuery.
>> It means developing any new feature using jQuery and put all the effort we
>> can in migrating existing features to jQuery until the point we can vote
>> the removal of prototype.js, and put it aside, as an possible extension.
>>
>>
>>> Will we still be including prototype in every page load? Will it still be
>>> bound to the $ variable? If so then loading jquery for a small widget is
>> a
>>> performance issue.
>>>
>>> If the vote were to change prototype from holding the $ global variable
>> and
>>> only load it on demand (requirejs) and refactor all of our code to deal
>>> with
>>> it, I'd be in favor of this even though it will break backward compat for
>>> the
>>> user. If we're not willing to (ever) break backward compat then talking
>>> about
>>> jquery is silly, we're a prototype shop, that's just our fate.
>>>
>>> This vote looks like a sort of non-binding resolution in favor of jquery
>>> and
>>> disfavor of prototype so for that I'll give a non-binding +1.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/26/2014 02:15 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> +1 (both the vote and Marius' suggestions)
>>>>>
>>>>> But we also need to decide on an OOP framework for jQuery, if we still
>>>>> want to write OOP widgets instead of some raw function hell.
>>>> +1, otherwise it will be harder to migrate the current object oriented
>>>> code written in Prototype.js .
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>> I would add that we should use it with require.js and that we should
>>>>>> make sure the jQuery plugins we pick integrate with require.js
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Marius
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> +1, most of the mainstream JavaScript frameworks (Angular, Ember,
>>>>>>> Backbone) integrate very well with jQuery so we shouldn't have any
>>>>>>> problem picking one of these JavaScript frameworks later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Marius
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been brought into discussion several times so this thread
>> is
>>>>>>>> intended for this particular topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Caty
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sergiu Dumitriu
>>>>> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devs mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devs mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devs mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Denis Gervalle
>> SOFTEC sa - CEO
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs


--
Jérôme Velociter
+33 786 993 355
@jvelo
Open source e-commerce and marketplaces made simple www.mayocat.org
46cl www.46cl.fr

_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs