[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 11:16:34 EDT 2012

As far as I can tell, our target audiences have not changed since DTK's
inception, and I don't see how changing that audience will help for a
raison d'etre for 2.0.  That being said, here's some practical reasons I
think (and sorry but I'm getting into a little bit of features again, sorry
in advance) 2.0:

Target audiences (not necessarily in this order):
1) Enterprise web app developers
2) Beginners looking to do quick progressive enhancements on a per-page
3) Mid-level developers looking to incorporate pieces into an app or page
(think a site that maybe needs one dgrid, that kind of thing).

We do well with the first audience but have not done so good with the other

To attract mindshare for #2, I think we need to go through the current
core, pull out all of the cruft, and simplify some basic APIs by making
them consistent and ridiculously easy to use.  This is the reason I'm
pushing for replacing our DOM creation/manipulation API with put-selector;
I'd also like to consider the idea of attaching .byId right to dojo/query,
so that we don't need dojo/dom.  From there, we could create something
similar to put-selector for style manipulation, and possibly measurement
things (aka position/coords/whatever the flavor is).

Though I haven't tried it yet, dojo/Request and dojo/Promise both look to
be very powerful but dead-simple to use, and should probably go in as-is.

Make sure we're writing things using ES5, and force the use of ES5 Shim in
environments that don't support it (aka IE).

Adopt/strengthen dojo/on and drop the IE cruft from it.

Keep dojo/declare.

I'm sure I'm missing some things but I think you all get the idea.
 Streamline, simplify and shink =)

I don't consider this to be some kind of competition/war either but
mindshare is mindshare, and I think a streamlined/simplified DTK 2.0 is the
way to start gaining some of that mindshare back.


On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Rawld Gill <rgill at altoviso.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dylan Schiemann
> > Ken said this perfectly... it's not that we don't need excellent
> marketing, it's
> > that the decision for what 2.0 needs to be should be based on the needs
> of
> > the product, not on the marketing "war".
> >
> I'm not arguing for a "marketing war". I'm arguing that we should
> understand our market and try to win the maximum number of customers in
> that market. (We should probably stop using the word "war" since it seems
> so loaded to some.)
> I'm sorry to be a pia, but can you/anybody please give a couple of
> examples of things we should *not* concern ourselves with. Or,
> equivalently, areas where we should *not* compete.
> That we need marketing says nothing. What is/is not the target market?
> What is/is not important to that market? The answers to those questions
> will tell us what needs to be done.
> --Rawld
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20121011/0b8c4a73/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list