[dojo-contributors] response to Tom's proposal
mail at dylans.org
Sun Dec 10 22:30:22 EST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> 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.
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the dojo-contributors