[TYPO3-ect] Future of different AJAX-libs?

[R. van Twisk]

Elmar Hinz wrote:
> R. van Twisk wrote:
>
>   
>>> * Programmers that don't want to fiddle around with javaScript will use
>>> xajax.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I don't fully agree, when I look at the examples of xajax, for example
>> the multiply
>> I still need to make onclick handers :
>> http://www.xajaxproject.org/examples/multiply/multiply
>> So I do need to know about javascript to get values from components.
>>     
>
> That is true. You need a minimal knowlage of onclick handlers.
>
>   
>> I think that prototype with there $ function solves that much better.
>>
>> The a mouth of complex JS is also limited with prototype...
>>
>>     
>
> I can't judge about the amount of JS in prototype. I am a simple PHP
> programmer.
>
>   
>>> * Programmers that want quality by prevention of errors in javaScript,
>>> will use xajax, because javascript is fully autogenerated.
>>>   
>>>       
>> When it comes to the ajax part, this goes for prototype aswell.
>>     
>
> So in what language do you programm prototype calls?
>
>   
>>> * Programmers that wish a slim library can use xajax.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Agreed... But you still need to do something with the data you receive
>> this needs a good library like prototype.
>>     
>
> Wrong. I don't need to do something with the received data. What happens
> with the data, is determined by the selection of the appropriate
> function on PHP level.
>
>   
>>> * Programmers that want a high production rate will use xajax.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Totally not agreed... if you know prototype and it's functions you can
>> make your behaviors just as fast as with any other library.
>>     
>
> I have some doubts, if you need to do something with the received data,
> like you stated in the lines before. But again I am simply not a JS
> programmer.
>
>   
>> No offence, but it sounds like you have a strong personal + for using
>> xajax without really looking into others needs.
>>
>>     
>
> I certainly have a personal interest as a am the maintainer of the TYPO3
> version of xajax. Every time I need to implement an update, I have to
> invest several hours to do a clean portatation.
>
>   
>> In MY case we need for example a method the build DOM elements,
>> I don't think that xajax can help me with that, yet prototope and
>> scripto...
>> can do that for me.
>>     
>
> That's what I am telling. xajax is usefull to do a bunch of daily tasks
> very quickly. But it is not a replacement for a full featured ajax
> library like prototype.
>
>   
>> it's fat because it contains many many functions to do any daily task.
>> Any slim library
>> cannot handle what prototype can do. There are quite some good things in
>> prototype.
>> TYPO3 is a 'fat' library, but it doesn't mean it's bad, it just contains
>> a lot of goodies.
>>     
>
> I don't need all this goodies to simply display a menu tree. In this
> case performance is the most critical factor. A specially tailored
> version of ajax would still be the best solution for such critical tasks.
>
>   

hey Elmar,

I always love your discussions.... in fact we are on the same line,
xajax and prototype needs to live next to eachother...

However performance on prototype is just as good as any other library.
So I think that prototype, even though it's 'fat' will do really well.

Also when you look at prototype it is just made if smaller components
which can often be even stripped out of the main lib.

Ries

> Regards
>
> Elmar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TYPO3-team-extension-coordination mailing list
> TYPO3-team-extension-coordination at lists.netfielders.de
> http://lists.netfielders.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/typo3-team-extension-coordination
>   


-- 
Ries van Twisk
Freelance Typo3 Developer
=== Private:
email: ries at vantwisk.nl
web:   http://www.rvantwisk.nl/freelance-typo3.html
skype: callto://r.vantwisk
=== Work:
email: ries at livetravelguides.com
web:   http://www.livetravelguides.com