[dojo-contributors] response to Tom's proposal

[Dylan Schiemann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Could someone clearly define what is meant by behavioral here?  I want
to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Tom Trenka wrote:
> Allow me also to re-address this point.
> 
> On 12/10/06, *Jesse Kuhnert* <jkuhnert at gmail.com
> <mailto:jkuhnert at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I had some thoughts on your responses to the proposal that I've
>     inlined below with the stress on the point that these are ~my~
>     thoughts , not necessarily those of the author.
> 
>     > 1) It seems to me that many if not all of the widgets in the "current
>     > widgets" (1.0) will be necessary when developing in the "new
>     style" (2.0).
>     > Web 2.0 applications still have trees, lists, grids, etc.  I can
>     see what
>     > you talk about with the different audiences, but it seems like
>     having two
>     > completely different widget systems will result in a lot of
>     overlap and
>     > duplication of code.  And what if I'm using the "2.0" system, but
>     I need
>     > something that's only in the "1.0" set?   I'll have to pull a lot
>     of " 1.0"
>     > infrastructure in just to handle that one widget -- Yuck!  Or build it
>     > myself, when it's right there on the other side of the wall --
>     double Yuck!
>     >
> 
>     This part of the proposal is what I would consider the most important
>     part that exists. The developers who do and do not like certain
>     aspects of how to do things in the widget system are growing more and
>     more to feel like the line in the sand needs to be drawn(at least
>     that's how it feels). It doesn't mean that one way is better than the
>     other, but while some of us may not necessarily feel that they are
>     very different for others the differences are enough to drive our set
>     of core contributors mad/apart/whatever happens when people just can't
>     agree/ etc..
> 
> 
> The thing about what Owen labels as "widget 2.0" is that it's less a
> widget system and more a behavioral one.  Look--I don't think that there
> should be a coherent widget set in the second system.  That is a simple
> repetition of the first system, and that's not the point.  The point is
> that I should be able to some very simple code to facilitate behavioral
> changes.  Again, I'll point to the RadioGroup widget as a replacement
> for Tabs.  There is no template, there is no major alteration (other
> than 2 CSS style applications) to existing markup--all the widget does
> is attach a set of behaviors to an unordered list so that it lets you
> choose one of the list as a selection.  Whether the list itself is a set
> of buttons or a set of tabs isn't the question, and *it makes no
> assumptions*.
> 
> What I'm proposing and formulating here isn't anything super new; we've
> discussed some of these ideas before, as either dojo.sprite or
> dojo.behavior.  What I'm saying is that we should stop making feints at
> it, and actually start doing it.
> 
> trt
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFfNDO8nLgh/JJsxERAo/WAJ4tr1lyjgMHqE3/ZLI0AtRLTT6KPACdFNs1
fVBrxgMEAs8HCa7iSVXWJ6o=
=aTk+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----