[aerogear-dev] AeroGear.js without jQuery Discussion

[Sebastien Blanc]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that it would be nice to implement AGJS-70<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-70> (Investigate
>>> removing jQuery requirement). Meanwhile, there is an open source project on
>>> GitHub that claims to offer a custom builder for jQuery in order to include
>>> only the modules needed [1] [2]. I haven't tried it yet but maybe we could
>>> create a custom jQuery build which includes only the parts currently needed
>>> in AeroGear. This would mean a smaller size of the jQuery dependency.
>>>
>>>
>>> The AG lib depends on a few parts of jQuery, the biggest being
>>> jQuery.Ajax and the promise implementation.
>>>
>>> i know we can make custom builds of jQuery pretty easily( building from
>>> source ),  but i don't really want to bundle it within our lib.
>>>
>>> and i don't think with bower we can do this easily. although they did
>>> just add a post install hook, so perhaps that could be something to look at.
>>>
>>> Datamanager only uses the promise implementation of jQuery( and some
>>> random thing for the filter method,  which could probably be updated ).
>>>  Promises are starting to become available natively in browsers and jQuery
>>> doesn't use the Promise/A+ spec,  so it could be harder to fallback without
>>> a shim of some kind
>>>
>>>
>>> while i don't really want to reinvent the wheel in terms of Ajax,  it
>>> might be interesting to take a look.  I think in a previous ML thread about
>>> what 2.0 looked like,  that Pipeline would maybe just be a JSON only thing,
>>> with exception for multipart
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean here relying on a "lighter" Ajax lib or just refactoring it
>> using plain old XmlHttpRequest ?
>>
>>
>> we would have an internal AeroGear.Ajax( or something like that ) as our
>> "lighter" ajax lib that used plain xmlhttprequests
>>
>
>
> +1 on XHR usage - no other framework
>
+9001 \o/

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140324/9735b795/attachment-0001.html