Not sure it's the right question for this forum, but I couldn't find another place for it.
Our design team built their design system based on fluent ui libraries as described here. They downloaded the design from here.
Unfortunately, our engineering team is using Angular, so we naturally reached for the option of web component but found out to our surprise that the library is completely different - different set of components, abilities, and of course - a completely different design.
I thought that all fluentui platforms are supposed to be an implementation / interface of the same design. Why is this not the case? What am I missing?
Is there a way we can use the design described in here in Angular? (Except actually using the react library inside my Angular project).
Thanks for helping and very sorry if this question is inappropriate for this forum.
fluent web components integrated with angular.
take a look at documents
Related
There are plenty of good addons, developed for vaadin 7 and vaadin 8 non compatible with flow. Searching for solution i found - vaadin docs on MPR (multiplatform runtime) - where LegacyWrapper class is available which provides integration for legacy components into flow engine. The MPR is available for Prime (paid) subscription users only, so does the LegacyWrapper class as well.
Could anybody please give any hints how to make a simple wrapper implementation for using legacy components into flow layouts. I believe, supposed CustomLegacyWrapper class should inherit from vaadin.flow.component and contain (as a composition, maybe?) vaadin.ui.AbstractComponent. How the baseline solution might look like?
Thanks in advance.
I've got an answer to my question on the vaadin forum from one of the contributors that there is no simple workaround for my purpose, integration of old components into flow engine is one of multiplatform features and its not possible to implement it in easy way.
I've been reading about Durandal and Aurelia every time I read something new on Javascript. I hear developers asking to upgrade from Durandal to Aurelia, or similar, on so many blogs. Although I do have an idea, I am confused about what the two really are and how they are related, or if at all they even are related.
Here's how I see it. Durandal is a lightweight SPA framework that allows you to leverage the best of other JS libraries and utilities to build an app. So it's not really a whole package in itself (unlike Angular), but can use different external JS libs - such as Knockout for binding, jQuery for DOM, Sammy for routing, etc.
Aurelia, on the other hand, is where the confusion comes in. Is it also an SPA framework? Or is it limited to being a client-side (front end) framework only? To add to my confusion there is a Durandal blog that talks only about Aurelia. I know from the internet that Rob Eisenberg worked on Durandal before he started working on Aurelia. So is Aurelia an upgrade of Durandal, or something completely unrelated?
I still have some questions but I'm guessing the structure of my question so far will be only asking for opinionated answers. So before this question is closed, any description, links and references in regard will be amazing. I'll be sure to update and add useful links here too.
According to Rob Eisenberg:
"Aurelia is just a vNext of Durandal. On occasion we've even called it Durandal Aurelia. Much like XBox 360 vs. XBox One. The web is significantly evolving, so we're evolving Durandal into Aurelia to match."
Aurelia, on the other hand, is where the confusion comes in. Is it
also an SPA framework? Or is it limited to being a client-side (front
end) framework only?
Yes, it is a SPA framework. Actually, it is a framework for building Javascript clients, it means you can develop apps for Browser, Desktop and Mobile. Take a look at this video https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Seth-on-the-Road/DevIntersection-2015/Rob-Eisenberg-on-Aurelia
Different from Durandal, Aurelia comes with the full package, everything you need is there. However, it is perfectly pluggable and extensible, and you can combine any other technologies if necessary.
Here is description provided by the official site www.aurelia.io
What is Aurelia?
Well, it's actually simple. Aurelia is just JavaScript. However, it's not yesterday's JavaScript, but the JavaScript of tomorrow. By using modern tooling we've been able to write Aurelia from the ground up in ECMAScript 2016. This means we have native modules, classes, decorators and more at our disposal...and you have them too.
Not only is Aurelia written in modern and future JavaScript, but it also takes a modern approach to architecture. In the past, frameworks have been monolithic beasts. Not Aurelia though. It's built as a series of collaborating libraries. Taken together, they form a powerful and robust framework for building Single Page Apps (SPAs). However, Aurelia's libraries can often be used individually, in traditional web sites or even on the server-side through technologies like NodeJS."
Some of the greatest advantages of Aurelia (in my opinion) are:
Powerful Data-binding. Different from others frameworks like Angular, Aurelia uses new features of Javascript. So, all data-binding stuffs are usually faster in Aurelia (source http://blog.durandal.io/2015/12/04/aurelia-repaint-performance-rules/)
Simple Conventions and Simple Syntax. It is really easy to develop in Aurelia. There are a lot of features ready to use. If you want to overwrite some convention, usually 1 line of code is enough. (see http://aurelia.io/docs.html#/aurelia/framework/1.0.0-beta.1.0.3/doc/article/getting-started)
Hope it helps!
I am working on enterprise-level business applications, and now is the time to start thinking about the non-desktop experience.
We have a common component code-base that is using dojo, and are trying to get as much code re-use as possible.
I am really struggling to determine if I should re-use the same code base, or have separate code bases for desktop and mobile.
A big factor in my decision making is the viabliity of dojox/mobile.
It seems pretty cool, and uses the dojo infrastructure which is a huge win, but the fact that it is in dojox scares me a little.
Some questions:
Is dojox/mobile something that can be relied on long term?
Is it a smart idea to try to swap out dijit components for dojox/mobile components depending on what has.js can tell me?
Will dojox/mobile be a part of dojo2.0?
I would add that in Dojo 2.0 the plan is to converge as much as possible the desktop (dijit) and the mobile (dojox/mobile) widgets which should help in your use-case. See: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/2013-June/029041.html
You can rely on dojox/mobile. DojoX will indeed disappear from the Dojo Toolkit in 2.0, but most matured (and probably maintained) modules will be pushed to the dijit/dojo library. I quote the reference guide:
In the future (Dojo 2.0), the DojoX package and namespace will
removed. Sub-Packages and modules will be either integrated into the
Dojo Core, Dijit or separated as their own stand-alone package. For
the 1.X code stream though, in order to ensure backwards
compatibility, all these packages are contained within the dojox
namespace and package.
If we look at the explanation of Mature, we can read the following:
This package or module is considered mature and is being actively
developed and maintained by committers within the Dojo Toolkit. It is
expected that it will persist into the foreseeable future.
Source
And if you look at the link above, you will notice that dojox/mobile is categorized as mature.
Another reason you can rely on it is that IBM (which can be considered a pretty big company and committer to the Dojo toolkit) also relies on dojox/mobile for their mobile product called IBM Worklight. If they rely on it, then there's no reason you couldn't.
I don't think it will be easy to start from the same code base and swap out dijits for dojox/mobile components. Usually mobile app development requires an entire different strategy than web applications. You will probably have to split certain things into multiple views and some dijits may not have a mobile alternative.
You can probably re-use most of your utilities and business logic, but I think you will have to start from scratch again if you want to write your view(s). But I'm not really an advanced mobile developer.
This one is a quick question regarding the possibility of having the same LnF (same look) on Android and iOS, is there an API that can provide something like this? SImilar to MAUI in MoSync or IwUI in marmaladeSDK?
Basically what I would like to do is to create my UI once for both iOS and Android using monodeveloper.
Note: Before anyone downvotes anymore, please take into account that this is a real requirement for a real project. The question is not without reason, since after looking at the documentation, I can see that Xamarin does not provide such solution, but other multi-platform SDKs do provide such solution, and since the mono ecosystem is vast, perhaps there is a third party library that can provide such functionality.
Unfortunately most of your code portability will be on the backend (non UI) when leveraging Monotouch. There are far too many inconsistencies with how an Android UI vs iOS UI are implemented respectively to their OS's.
Have you checked out http://ifactr.com/overview ? It is a paid product so I haven't tried it, but it might be at least work looking into. Other than this, no there is no cross-platform UI if you go the Mono route.
Taken directly from their page:
"But we learned that even with as much code sharing that MonoCross provides, for applications with significant UI layers, the burden of creating platform-specific UIs can be overbearing. So we created the iFactr UI abstraction layer, which allows developers to code to an abstract UI interface, and then reference our iFactr concrete implementations of that interface for all the mobile platforms, both as native UI implementations and HTML5 UI implementations.
While not a silver bullet for all mobile development, it is designed and optimized for rapidly creating data-driven UIs that enterprise users tend to demand. And because it’s integrated with MonoCross, you can mix-and-match your iFactr UI screens that are shared across platforms with screens that you can code to target specific platforms using the entire set of native APIs available on each mobile OS."
The problem is Android and iOS have different UI / UX metaphors.
Take this for example: http://kintek.com.au/blog/portkit-ux-metaphor-equivalents-for-ios-6-and-android-4/
The differences are fairly significant. If you use a development wrapper then you'll have to 100% rely on their tools. We've had experience with Titanium in the past and it wasn't good at all.
I've been recommended the Click framework from Apache. But I can't find any forums talking about benchmark, reviews, advantages, disavantages, usefulness, ease of implementation, etc.
I've been asked to use it to develop a web site, but I'm completly in the dark about its strengths and weaknesses.
And its damn name isn't helping !! Click ? Hey Apache ! Call your next framework "the" just for fun. I dare you.
So can anyone comment on his experience with Click ?
What I personally like about the Click framework is that it is fairly close to HTML/HTTP and the Servlet API. There is no huge abstraction to get familiar with. You have a Page class, a Form class, ... If you need to preserve state across invocations you put it in the session or you pass it through the URL... This makes it easy to start using it. It is also straightforward to control the HTML pages being generated. It may sound like it is a very basic framework but the simplicity is actually one of it greatest strengths.
Other frameworks (e.g. Seam) are more suitedr to create a very large web application with lots of reusable components and complicated pageflows but the learning curve is much steeper. So for me Click works well for small to medium sized websites.
It's an apache incubator project but that does not mean the project is not stable, rather it reflects that it is in transition to the Apache project model.
Click is Apache's version of a component based web framework equivalent to JSF (other component base Java Frameworks are Tapestry and Wicket)
Click is rated at Ohloh
There is an official blog and some Wikipedia references: Framework Comparision and info page