I'm all for using promises that actually make sense,
but have you considered consistency?
Are you suggesting some modules will return jQuery.Deferred while others will use ES6
promises?
i re read what i wrote and i think i wrote it very confusingly(?), not sure that is a
word, but i'm going with it
I would like to start with the UnifiedPushClient and remove the jQuery dependency from
that. It would then return an ES6 promise instead, or you can still use callbacks.
i think this might be ok for a next release, 1.5.0, since the api is labeled
experimental.
For datamanager, 2 out of the 4 adapters are labeled experimental, so we would not change
the promises return type until 2.0
what i previously wrote sounded like i wanted to change 2 data manager adapters while
keeping the other 2 the same.
I would vote for all or nothing. ;-)
What about allow a developer to override what promise will be returned?
We can pass all promises through singleton (that can be overwritten/plugged-in by the
developer),
and that will decide what promise to return.
In 1.x it can return jQuery.Deferred by default (but can be rewritten to Promise).
In 2.x it can return Promise (as in ES6) by default (but can be rewritten to
jQuery.Deferred).
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> wrote:
in the canary branch i started looking at removing jQuery from the UnifiedPush client
code, since it only uses jQuery.Ajax.
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/tree/canary
That's really cool and I will probably use this in my experimental FirefoxOS support
for the Cordova Push Plugin
i was thinking this would be a 2.0 thing, but for this particular
module/adapter/whatevs, i think we can update it before that since we marked it
"experimental"
in datamanager we have the IndexedDB and WebSQL adapters marked as experimental, so we
could do those, but since the other 2 adapters are not, we should probably wait.
Just want to see what the team thought about that, before i started to go cray-cray
-Luke
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Side note: getting integration with jQuery{ajax,promises} right was one of the
pain points when integrating with AeroGear.js / Angular (uses q.js, and custom http
service).
>>
> i know they include their "own" version of jQuery
>
>> We must be sure whatever we choose is compatible with frameworks out there (at
least it should not hard-nut to make it work). In terms of promises implementation. In the
end people may even end up using 2-3 promise approaches in one project that makes code
pretty disgusting.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> +1 getting rid of jQuery.ajax
>> +1 getting rid of jQuery promises (they are just wrong anyway ;-)
>>
>>
>> Btw in terms of polyfilling, I would suggest:
>>
>> 1) use whatever standard is as long as supported by majority of mainstream
browsers
>>
>> 2) use whatever standard will be and compile polyfill into aerogear.js (as long
as it's not too bloated; not necessary for bower users)
>>
> the polyfill i was thinking about is here
https://github.com/jakearchibald/es6-promise
>
> it is just the spec and 2kb gzipped, which is nice
>
> and i think this could be an external( compiled in ) dep of the library
>
>
>> Wdyt?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Given number of supported browsers is quite low -
http://caniuse.com/promises, I
>> believe that polyfill will be needed even with version 2.0.
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:01:38 -0400
>> Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf
<matzew(a)apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Sebastien Blanc
<scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Lucas Holmquist
<lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:10 AM, tolis emmanouilidis
<tolisemm(a)gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 2014-03-24 15:39 GMT+02:00 Matthias Wessendorf
<matzew(a)apache.org>:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Lucas Holmquist
<lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>> I agree that it would be nice to implement 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
>> > >
>> > > not sure I see value in using a different library as a temporary
thing.
>> > > Once the API is part of the browser platform, the need for [yet another
js
>> > > lib] goes away. I know but I'm more concerned about "Once the
API is part
>> > > of the browser platform" When will that happen and does it match
with our
>> > > roadmap ? Was also to offer a polyfill for older browser if we want to
keep
>> > > supporting them.
>> > >
>> > i will have to update the roadmap.
>> >
>> > 2.0 would be a nice time to "fully" switch, but we can start
experimenting
>> > now and maybe for 1.5 can have some implemenation for data manager only.
>> >
>> > Current Chrome has Promise's enable by default and it looks like
FireFox
>> > 29( next version ) will too. Safari and IE are in dev i believe
>> >
>> > for fallback we can still make use of jQuery i think because of this method
>> > here "Promise.cast", although the closest lib to the spec is
RSVP( maybe
>> > this could be the 2.0 fallback if we remove jQuery from the whole lib )
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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