• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation


  • Subject: Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
  • From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:48:32 +0300

Thanks Mike, I need to looks at Wonder Ajax.framework sources to maybe borrow some ideas.

Andrus


On May 23, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:

A short version of the question: which toolkit? why?
Prototype/Scriptaculous are sort of the 800 lb gorilla ... Rails picked it, and it has become sort of the de facto. They're very good as a base, but scriptaculous doesn't really define any higher level widgets. Ajax.framework is built on top of them. So while they don't provide high level widgets, the base does work very consistently in all the browsers.

Dojo = I have never been impressed with the performance of Dojo. It's always felt very sluggish loading to me. They also don't seem to care as much about consistent cross-browser support. Lots of their stuff seems to just not really function in Safari, which is an immediate turn off for me.

YUI = For a high-level ajax/javascript toolkit, it's really impressive. We have the very tiny beginnings of a YUI.framework in Wonder (not much there yet). Its documentation is awesome, the widgets are really powerful, and it seems to work very well in all the browsers. Obviously one of the trickier things with integrating it into something like WO is deciding how you want to handle the rendering model. With Ajax.framework, we build the widgets in WO and just use Scriptaculous/Prototype for the low level operations. This gave us the ability to really take advantage of components for rendering. With YUI, they make most of the rendering decisions on the client side, so it's much more like a predesigned widget toolkit that you feed data to from the server, vs like how Ajax framework does it where we provide hooks for you to do your own rendering. A good example of this is the tree widget. In YUI, you get the tree widget that YUI has designed. In Ajax framework, you provide your own component for the node renderer and you can mostly make it look how you want. And this is not to say it isn't possible to DO this in YUI, it's just going to be a little harder.

ms

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40objectstyle.org


This email sent to email@hidden


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >[OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation (From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>)
 >Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
  • Next by Date: Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
  • Previous by thread: Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
  • Next by thread: Re: [OT] JS/AJAX toolkits evaluation
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread