[dojo-contributors] 1.3 direction

Adam L. Peller adam at peller.org
Sun Oct 5 15:51:05 EDT 2008


Pete beat me to it, but I'll reiterate - dojox project state should reflect
maturity *before* we migrate.  Also, stating the obvious, there must be
commitment from someone to maintain the code if it is moved into
dojo/dijit.  DTL is very cool, but I'm not sure I see the rush to get it in
Dijit.

-Adam

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Peter E Higgins <dante at dojotoolkit.org>wrote:

> To be honest, your list sound frighteningly involved for the time frame
> we're looking at.  We were "way overdue" on 1.2, so time is limited ...
> 1.3 seems to be decidedly driven by IE8 support / release. Given the
> limited window of coding we're given for this release, I have the
> following comments (inline):
>
> Alex Russell wrote:
> > My big items for 1.3 are:
> >
> >     * unifying abstractions for dijit.WidgetSet/dojo.query/etc.
> This is cool, but would require a lot of testing and would touch a lot
> of the codebase. To ensure we adequately address any potential
> backwards-compatibility issues and our own use throughout the source
> receive proper attention, I would suggest punting this idea to 1.4
> >     * dojox.dtl moved into Core and DTL becoming the default template
> > system for Dijit
> I'm not sure it is ready for that?  Granted, I'm admittedly a dojox.dtl
> noob, and the whole thing has recently excited me (and others) a lot,
> but it seems to lack full documentation.
>
> This is a great guide:
> http://dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-book-0-9/part-5-dojox/dojox-dtl but it
> needs to be migrated to the wiki. The API docs seem painfully slim as
> well: http://api-staging.dojotoolkit.org/jsdoc/dojox/HEAD/dojox.dtl --
>
> There is also a caveat regarding dtl's use in the x-domain case, where
> you need to explicitly require the tags and filters you are using which
> imho prevents it from being used immediately to replace the Dijit
> _Templated mixin.
>
> I agree after the docs and examples are beefed up it would be a great
> addition to Dojo Core, but it is currently marked as experimental, and
> clearly has some shortcomings as it stands. In following the spirit of
> the basis of dojox.dtl (django), I would urge we get all the docs,
> examples, and unit tests in place before we commit to Core.
>
> >     * IE 8 support
> This was agreed upon as one of the main driving factors for 1.3.
> Allegedly, it will be mid-to-late Novemeber, which only gives us two
> months to implement and test.
> >     * Editor (ugg)
> ugg, yes. But I have faith in you.
>
> >     * package tools (make it simple to distribute extensions,
> > incremental
> > re-builds, etc.)
> >
> decoupling DojoX has always been on the agenda, afaik, which is how I
> interpret "distribute extensions" -- the uxebu folks had a novel idea in
> that regard, which might warrant investigation, but I'll let them put
> the idea out for discussion, as I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
> Incremental rebuilds is an interesting idea, but again, frightening
> "changing" for such a short timeframe.
>
> So, to follow up, my 1.3 bullet-list would include:
>
> * IE8 compatibility across projects
> * Fixing serious bugs, and going light on features and enhancements
> * Getting some of the low-hanging DojoX components promoted to Dijit
> (expando comes to mind, Grid hopefully?)
> * Getting some of the previously discussed enhancements into Core:
>    * dojo.createElement / whateverItWillBeNamed (with full unit tests,
> docs, and examples)
>    * dojo.parser.instantiate - we discussed a more simple way to grep
> attributes off of nodes and create widgets
>       based on existing nodes.
>     * others?
> * DOCUMENTATION! We've come a long way in this effort, though still have
> much work to do. This is still one of my top priorities, and the only
> place we even come close to being out-done by the other libraries.  I
> suggest we spend a lot of the manpower going into 1.3 to ensuring all
> the docs are in place, working, readable, API info available, etc,
> before putting new items into the code base. It is much easier to
> document something before it is released than to play 'catch-up' with
> older functionality as we have done in the past. We take a lot for
> granted because we know how a lot of the core and base functions work,
> but there is still much to be explained. I'd like to be able to point
> someone to a documentation page for about any question we can field.
>
> Regards-
> Peter Higgins
>
> > Regards
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Bill Keese wrote:
> >
> > > Can we contributors reach some consensus on the two or three top
> > > priorities for the 1.3 release that we'll all work on?  What do you
> > > think they should be?  (I won't be there on Sunday so I thought I'd
> > > start the thread here.)
> >
> > > Basically, I'm looking for consensus/buy-in from the people actually
> > > writing the code, so we can work together towards that common goal.
> > > We
> > > did this once before back in the 0.9 development days, when we decided
> > > to rewrite everything.  But I don't think we've really done it since
> > > then.   The 1.3 delata should be a lot smaller than 0.9 delta, but
> > > should still set a general direction.
> >
> > > I have some ideas but I figure I'll let others answer first.
> > > Although,
> > > BTW, I started a discussion about Dijit 1.3 priorities in
> > > http://dojotoolkit.org/2008/09/17/dijit-1-3.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://turtle.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://turtle.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20081005/91e7eac6/attachment.htm 


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list