Dev at weitling pisze: > Hi Grek, hi Jeremy, Hi Florian.
> Some thoughts on my side: > - Normally a Cocoon user doesn't have much contact with Dojo, iirc > effects and drag'n'drop. Yes, but there may be users that have their own stuff relying of Dojo's APIs. Moreover, we (at least I think so) agreed on the point that major change to artifact's dependencies should imply new major release of that artifact. There are people already developing against Forms 1.0.0-RC1 that, as block's version implies, should see 1.0.0 final soon rather than new, incompatible changes that would push final release to vague future. > - As a Cocoon application has to be revised switching from 2.1 to 2.2 > either, Dojo changes might be checked, too. I believe in incremental updates and release early, release often principles. We have a great stuff in Forms block already, we should let the world just use it. > - It would be helpful if Dojo is integratable into Cocoon in a more > standard way i.e. no (or at least at a minimum) differences to the > standard Djo distribution as necessary. > As a non-commiting reader I would be glad to see these thoughts taken > into account. You are welcome to give your comments, of course! Could you elaborate on Cocoon's differences to the standard Dojo distribution? What's annoying? > > P.S. to Grek: As there hasn't been an answer to > [http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg53627.html] I > still don't see the disadvantages of Ajax to prefer a fat-client over it :-? I didn't respond your e-mail because I wanted to have something working to proof my concept but I'm so busy that I don't think I will be able to show something I could be satisfied with so I'll address your doubts with words instead of example. Actually, I was having in mind applications that are fat itself so it's not matter if you go with Ajax or not, you are going to have fat client. -- Grzegorz Kossakowski http://reflectingonthevicissitudes.wordpress.com/
