myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Date Wed, 27 May 2009 18:16:38 GMT
IMHO, Dojo, Prototype.js, JQuery and most other "big" JS libraries are
more or less the same.

Dojo was very bloated in the past, but the Dojo team have cleaned a
lot, which makes it a quite lean and mean library atm.
I've always been a Prototype.js fan because the programming model
looks the most like Java (objects vs. functions).
I'm using JQuery on my current project and I must say, I like it. It
offers a really productive API, but it's a quite difficult library for
beginners, because it relies heavily on function chaining, closures,
etc. Prototye.js code is often longer, but also more readable.

But because Prototype.js is also moving towards a more "oneliner API"
and Dojo is getting leaner, I would say, let the license decide.

JQuery: MIT + GPL. Don't know if MIT can be used?
Prototype.js: Also MIT
Dojo: BSD + Academic Free License

I've checked out some other libraries (YUI, Sajax...) and it looks
like BSD is a much used licensing model amongst JS libraries...
I wouldn't use ExtJS because of the reasons stated by Ganesh.

If MIT is compatible with Apache, I would use JQuery, otherwise, if
BSD or Academic Free License is compatible with Apache, use Dojo,
otherwise we need to look for another JS library which has a good
license...

My 2 cents,
/JK


2009/5/27 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
> Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago.  It's
> compatible in theory, but not in practice.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org> wrote:
>> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
>> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use
>> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have
>> the OS spirit.
>

Mime
View raw message