click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "florin.g" <flo...@bytenotes.com>
Subject Re: A very good Calendar replacement (MIT license)
Date Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:30:12 GMT


I'm a jQuery guy. If I am forced to load prototype for the sake of a calendar, I'll have to
make do without the click-extra package. A popup calendar is the single most needed javascript
component and in my opinion it should be independent of any framework.

Thanks to everyone for the good work.


Joseph Schmidt wrote:
>> Please note this is a Prototype based Calendar so its claim of only 
>> 20kb is incorrect. More likely 20kb + 115kb for Prototype.
> But Prototype is already required by other Click controls, and
> it's in extras anyway.


Not saying not to include it. Just providing full disclosure and that 
we need to be careful with siding with a particular JS framework.

For example if you include a Prototype control in your Page and want 
to use JQuery you are bound to run into incompatibility issues since 
Prototype have the bad practice of polluting Object. Also both 
frameworks bind the '$' character.


> Besides, if you want to remove Prototype than another base library needs 
> to take it's place - e.g. jQuery(cause it's small enough compared to 
> other solutions) - it doesn't make sense to implement everything by hand.


There are no plans of removing the Prototype controls however we need 
to be careful because we are forcing the Prototype framework onto users.

My own feeling is that its better to host specific JS framework 
controls in ClickClick like was done with JQuery.

regards

bob




-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/A-very-good-Calendar-replacement-%28MIT-license%29-tp2651408p2656713.html
Sent from the click-development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message