Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear.js without jQuery Discussion

On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:10 AM, tolis emmanouilidis <tolisemm(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 2014-03-24 15:39 GMT+02:00 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt;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 >> > Good to know. Thanks for providing this info. > > sounds reasonable to 'wait' on the promise side of things, and use that > bit in the datamanager > +1 there are other promise implementations that we could use, that are to spec, such as Q and RSVP, here is the link to the HTML5 rocks article http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/es6/promises/

>> >> while i don't really want to reinvent the wheel in terms of Ajax, it >> might be interesting to take a look. >> > > Yeah, IMO worth to look there, for reducing dependencies > > -M > > > > > >> 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 >> >> >> @Lucas Thanks for making things clear > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev