Ajax Toolkit evaluation.

[Jon Gorrono]

Hi, Jonathan.

Another, perhaps more challenging criterion would be something like 
'plays nicely with the usual "MVC" suspects' of which Wicket, JSF, and ASF might be a few.

It may be more a matter that the reverse relationships (eg, JSF 'playing well' with the AJAX toolkit) in the end, but the AJAX toolkit should not be the 'bad guy'....

Jp

Herb Wideman wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> You have probably considered these additional criteria but just in case :
> 
> - efficiency of coding process using toolkits - how quickly can standard 
> tasks/builds get done? Are there usability issues with the toolkits 
> themselves that could impede their functionality for certain specialized 
> purposes that are important to our planned development work?
> 
> - efficiency of resultant code - I'm speculating here as I have no 
> programming/computer science background, but perhaps less efficient code 
> could cause delays on low-bandwidth networks? There was quite a 
> discrepancy in the Dr Dobbs-reported test Colin referenced recently - 
> the Dojo JavaScript file generated in their test development was about 
> 8X larger that that generated by YUI. Could this be an issue for the 
> development of high-access UI components which might possibly be more 
> code- and bandwidth-intensive than standard UI structures?
> 
> Herb
> 
> Jonathan Hung wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> We have come up with a shortlist of  Ajax toolkits we will consider as 
>> the technology to develop FLUID components on.
>>
>> 1. Dojo
>> 2. Mochikit
>> 3. YUI
>> 4. JQuery
>> 5. Prototype with Scriptaculous
>>
>> Going forward, we will write a simple component to evaluate each 
>> component. The criteria used in evaluation include:
>>
>> - debugging support
>> - cross browser support (IE 6 and 7, FF1.5 and FF2+, Safari, Opera)
>> - accessibility support (i.e. ARIA)
>> - portal (JSR-168) compatibility (i.e. plays nice in a portal)
>> - skinnable
>> - community support and momentum
>> - security
>> - event abstraction
>> - extensible
>>
>> We'd love to have input from the community regarding the 5 toolkits we 
>> have selected for consideration.
>>
>> Also, if there are other criteria we should consider, please let us know.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> - Jonathan.
>>
>>  
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work


-- 
Jon Gorrono * email{jpgorrono ( at ) ucdavis ( dot ) edu} http{mediaworks.ucdavis.edu}

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3253 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20070504/14fa4b99/attachment.bin>