[TYPO3-hci] ajax: TAKE TWO

[Peter Klein]

As I wrote before, then "prototype.js" should be avoided, as it f*cks up 
other javascripts on the page.

The problem with  "prototype.js" is that it modifies the standard JS 
objects. Then when you use the same objects in other scripts, they behave 
differently than expected. Specially if you use "for (var i in obj)" type of 
loops.

-- 
Peter Klein/Umloud Untd

"Elmar Hinz" <elmar.DOT.hinz at team.MINUS.red.DOT.net> skrev i en meddelelse 
news:mailman.1.1158061323.3776.typo3-team-hci at lists.netfielders.de...
>>
>> PS: what about using xajax for server communication and use another ajax
>> effect libary for the eyecandy
>
> Absolutely right,
>
> I think there is no reason for a "library war" or a decision for one
> single library.
>
> TAKE TWO!
>
> We need both types. One, that works without javaScript programming and
> offers high productivity and one for the eyecandies.
>
> Read, what Jared White the author of xajax has written about the
> cooperation with prototype:
>
> <quote source="http://community.xajaxproject.org/viewtopic.php?id=947">
>
> xajax should NOT require, depend on, or steal functionality from the
> popular Prototype Javascript library. Yes, I know, Prototype is the
> library du jour and anybody who's anybody in the Web 2.0 world is using.
> Well, guess what? So am I! And at the same time as xajax. And that's my
> point: Prototype and xajax can live side-by-side. I repeat: Prototype
> and xajax can live side-by-side. They don't interfere with each other.
> They're both built on the same Javascript language. Certain
> functionality is duplicated between xajax and Prototype, but that's OK.
> You can use as much of each library as you need to get the job done.
>
> </quote>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Elmar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>