[aerogear-dev] AeroGear.js without jQuery Discussion

Lukáš Fryč lukas.fryc at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 07:07:13 EDT 2014 

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 1, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Good point, jQuery fans who will start to use ES6 promises won't receive
just few additional parameters, but otherwise they can keep using a
then(success, error) syntax.


>
> 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.
>

Yea, that's what I heard, thanks for explanation. :-)


>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> This could be interesting,  but i would like to keep things simple first
>

+1 for simplicity


So just to re-iterate, the plan is to keep stable 1.x APIs as they are,
but in new APIs, leverage promises and offer people a polyfill.

In 2.x, we can fully embrace ES6 promises.


>
>
> 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 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at 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 at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc at 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 at 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 at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <
>>>> matzew at apache.org>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Sebastien Blanc <
>>>> scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Lucas Holmquist <
>>>> lholmqui at redhat.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:10 AM, tolis emmanouilidis <
>>>> tolisemm at gmail.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> 2014-03-24 15:39 GMT+02:00 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
>>>> >:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> 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 (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 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
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >> 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
>>>> > >
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140402/212e6f95/attachment-0001.html

More information about the aerogear-dev mailing list