[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
ttrenka at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 11:17:58 EDT 2012
Oh, we might consider adopting Kris Zyp's xstyle as well; I haven't played
with it directly though (just in the context of dgrid).
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Tom Trenka <ttrenka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 two.
> 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
>> > 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.
>> dojo-contributors mailing list
>> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dojo-contributors