Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 23041 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2009 16:46:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 2009 16:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 52281 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2009 16:47:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 52182 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2009 16:47:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 52060 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2009 16:47:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:47:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of josephcleong@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.170] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:46:52 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so366402wfc.25 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:46:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=LRO0D6m79OajykKOwSIiyf/v9P8mZUm62gNCV1jN8Pk=; b=RlE1709kXeks9WOTtmq6YOAO6hrfJpZnway2cn3mR5SQ6o4wC8U5B49pQDuXcLtXlX jHaIXWonnyde3WVG86xXft0DwAhYndHS7abci011Z782JnajxYvaU4OvsKdEjQZwY9w8 urxaDlwciiDZjA6ZmwdWyN2e+35zUpgYA2kyE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=onZr/fMkHwPLzFfdDm/LLhZ4+pOrwflb4I7BkYT5OUdefd7PJ1L4GRX+DCNiqpaLCH mEkikD2bo+irtsfObWwAT3Ia5de9aDQzZK+1KfkrozsnLW6atIiOrz/yaMmYnJ+ZFNtB 7162Ggvaa16WoNQSVuWowmU9JVmJAlnAhjpo4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.17.6 with SMTP id u6mr1089003wfi.136.1246466790636; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:46:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <48C00BD3-A605-4EFC-9D2C-AC231D2CD9C0@yahoo.com> <45f744e40907010114h423b85e2occ5f3d6b5968f7a5@mail.gmail.com> <97214DBA-5E6F-4A2D-835C-0B0CC060C1D7@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Which dojo? From: Joseph Leong To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636e0b4e447bc81046da7aadc X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001636e0b4e447bc81046da7aadc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Unfortunately, I'm a bit tied up. But i think this is a really really great opportunity for someone who wants to dive into the Web 2.0 javascript technologies and get a handle on how to use it. Not to mention, Dojo is one of the most widespread/popular libraries to be acquainted with. (As noted by there constant development) -Joseph Leong On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Joseph Leong wrote: > So unfortunately what happened between Dojo 0.4.3-> Mostly anything newer > especially 1.3.1 is that they had the idea to classify their libraries to > "Dijit" (Widgets) and other subsections. As such, the porting effort is not > small. I believe the debug-views portlets and such still depend on 0.4.3. At > this point in time, my opinion would be to not try and migrate any 0.4.3 > dependent code. There has been so much change between the dojo versions that > it would be probably simpler and cleaner to just rewrite these portlets. I > think it'd be a good choice to get rid of the old Dojo libraries once and > for all as they add a bit to the geronimo footprint size.. not to mention > there are a lot more features in the latest Dojo release that can probably > accomplish what you wanted to in the older versions. > > Thanks, > Joseph Leong > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> >> On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Ivan wrote: >> >> I think the one is what need, no samples and testcases are included. But I >> found 1.3.1 is released, why not use the newest one ? >> >> >> Newer would be better if we can get it to work. I set this up a few days >> ago and forgot the details... I think that I saw some problem and wasn't >> sure what was causing it and tried changing to an earlier dojo version. I >> didn't actually have any reason to think the problem was caused by dojo so >> very likely the more recent release should work. >> >> And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how shall we handle it ? Like tomcat, >> maitaine a our own repo ? >> >> >> Ideally I think we would migrate our code to up-to-date dojo. >> Unfortunately I have no idea how hard that would be. Does anyone? If we >> can't, I think there is some release of some 0.4.3 dojo, perhaps we can >> investigate using or repackaging it. >> >> There's also dwr.... but I think working on one dependency at a time will >> be less confusing. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >> >> 2009/7/1 David Jencks >> >>> In my attempt to remove our svn repo I found that dojo releases a >>> dojo-war that looks pretty similar to our repacked dojo war. I can make the >>> build work with the substitution but I don't know enough about dojo to know >>> if/what it breaks. Is there anyone who understands our use of dojo well >>> enough to take a look and see if this replacement is plausible? >>> >>> I recall some discussion in the distant past about not including all of >>> dojo... I'm not sure if this is still a concern, but if the released >>> dojo-war works and is too big we can use maven to come up with a smaller >>> war. >>> >>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4723 for my patch. >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ivan >> >> >> > --001636e0b4e447bc81046da7aadc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unfortunately, I'm a bit tied up. But i think this is a really really g= reat opportunity for someone who wants to dive into the Web 2.0 javascript = technologies and get a handle on how to use it. Not to mention, Dojo is one= of the most widespread/popular libraries to be acquainted with. (As noted = by there constant development)

-Joseph Leong

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at = 12:41 PM, Joseph Leong <josephcleong@gmail.com> wrote:
So unfortunately what happened between Dojo 0.4.3-> Mostly anything newe= r especially 1.3.1 is that they had the idea to classify their libraries to= "Dijit" (Widgets) and other subsections.=A0 As such, the porting= effort is not small. I believe the debug-views portlets and such still dep= end on 0.4.3. At this point in time, my opinion would be to not try and mig= rate any 0.4.3 dependent code. There has been so much change between the do= jo versions that it would be probably simpler and cleaner to just rewrite t= hese portlets.=A0 I think it'd be a good choice to get rid of the old D= ojo libraries once and for all as they add a bit to the geronimo footprint = size.. not to mention there are a lot more features in the latest Dojo rele= ase that can probably accomplish what you wanted to in the older versions.<= br>
Thanks,
Joseph Leong
<= div class=3D"h5">

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at = 12:10 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:<= br>

On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Ivan wrote:

I think the one is what need, no samples and testca= ses are included. But I found 1.3.1 is released, why not use the newest one= ?

Newer would be better if we can get it to= work. =A0I set this up a few days ago and forgot the details... I think th= at I saw some problem and wasn't sure what was causing it and tried cha= nging to an earlier dojo version. =A0I didn't actually have any reason = to think the problem was caused by dojo so very likely the more recent rele= ase should work.

And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how = shall we handle it ? Like tomcat, maitaine a our own repo ?

Ideally I think we would migrate our code to up-= to-date dojo. =A0Unfortunately I have no idea how hard that would be. =A0Do= es anyone? If we can't, I think there is some release of some 0.4.3 doj= o, perhaps we can investigate using or repackaging it. =A0=A0

There's also dwr.... =A0but I think working on one = dependency at a time will be less confusing.

thank= s
david jencks



2009/7/1 David Jencks <= ;david_jencks@y= ahoo.com>
In my attempt to remove our svn repo I found that dojo releases a dojo-war= that looks pretty similar to our repacked dojo war. =A0I can make the buil= d work with the substitution but I don't know enough about dojo to know= if/what it breaks. =A0Is there anyone who understands our use of dojo well= enough to take a look and see if this replacement is plausible?

I recall some discussion in the distant past about not including all = of dojo... I'm not sure if this is still a concern, but if the released= dojo-war works and is too big we can use maven to come up with a smaller w= ar.

See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4723 fo= r my patch.

thanks
david jencks



--
Ivan


--001636e0b4e447bc81046da7aadc--