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

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote: > > 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/ > These last days I have been playing with the library When provided by Cujo, it's maybe also worth looking https://github.com/cujojs/when

> > > >>> >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev