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.
Related
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!
My scenario: trying to port a small part of an application created by our company from native code (ObjC for iOS / Java for Android) to C-Sharp. The project will interact with our webservices. Goal of this project is figuring out how feasible it is to port our whole app to Mono.
To create URLs, I'd like to use String.Format(). I thought it'd be a wise idea to put this 'service layer' inside a Portable Class Library (PCL) since I don't expect this code to change across platforms. Sadly, it seems the String library is not available for PCLs.
So my question is the following:
I think the main advantage of PCLs over "normal" libraries is that they shouldn't need a recompile for different platforms. Is this assumption correct?
This experience makes me think that for the moment PCLs are rather limited. Should I try to stick with PCLs and work around these kinds of issues, or might it be better to stick with a "normal" library for now? --- I'll assume the "normal" library has more functionality exposed.
You can use PCLs currently across many platforms, but it does require some small hacks to your setup.
These hacks are listed in http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/cross-platform-winrt-monodroid.html
Once you've got those working then the functionality available is quite broad - and it definitely includes things like String.Format
For the situations where the PCL profile is not broad enough, then you can use several techniques for extending them - see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsplaisted/archive/2012/08/27/how-to-make-portable-class-libraries-work-for-you.aspx . The technique I generally use is to use MvvmCross Plugins - which are basically PCL interfaces with platform specific implementations. But these plugins are generally at the level of 'make bluetooth work' rather than at the level of String.Format
I do lots of PCL work across WinRT, WP, WPF, MonoTouch and Mono for Android - see http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/p/mvvmcross-quicklist.html for lots of links to PCL work.
It's true that Xamarin have recommended not using PCLs for a couple of years, but that situation has now changed and the official support for PCLs is under way - see http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-future-is-portable.html
From a development perspective - especially from the point of view of using refactoring and testing tools - I don't hesitate to recommend you use PCLs now... especially for operations at the String.Format level. However, each project is unique... so it's not always the right answer.
One important note: right now it's better to not reuse the PCL binary files across to the MonoTouch platform - for now, build your portable libraries against the specific MonoTouch library platform. See http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/almost-portable-binaries.html?m=1
Perhaps you want to look at the efforts other who have got PCLs working to a considerable degree with monotouch and monodroid.
For example see http://www.slideshare.net/cirrious/mvvm-cross-going-portable . You'll also find instructions on how to setup PCL support for MVVMCross here http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/mvvmcross-vnext-portable-class.html .
Xamarin has recently committed to providing far greater PCL support rather than some of the workarounds that people have been having to make, but it is worth the effort.
I've been looking over Sproutcore, Ember and Blossom and other competitive framework efforts (e.g. Sencha) to select for a HTML5 client side application project. The state, information, and documentation from these projects is a bit fragmented and in need of clarity, so I am presenting this to the community.
My project is to be a native-like HTML5 application with desktop level complexity in need of a complete application framework, that will work well on desktops and run with good speed on mobile devices with touch awareness. The widgets should be native-like (not web-like), but customizable so to be unique to the application.
Questions/framework Requirement:
Native vs. Web style Applications. Framework should make it easy to
build native-like user experiences with the ability to make a custom
native feel (not just wholly imitating mac/win/iOS). Some of the text
surrounding Ember indicates it is really meant for web-style apps - which given no
UI layer maybe goes without saying. Frameworks like Sencha, can it easily accommodate custom widgets?
Mobile Appropreatness. Framework should be appropreate for mobile devices and have facilities for touch input and
gestures.Several notes I've seen in my research indicate that Sproutcore and
Blossom aren't very appropreate for mobile, and that Ember is better
geared towards mobile (size?). It isn't clear whether the
touch/mobile libraries are very developed in Sproutcore/Blossom and if they will be supported it the
current state going forward. (and blossom compile to native is not acceptable). On the otherhand, Frameworks like Sencha, do they have the facility to work well on desktop as well as mobile?
Framework Completeness. The framework should be a fairly complete application framework, with desktop-like OO expectations and management for automatically and efficiently syncing, managing, and serializing the data model with the server. Not sure if there is much difference between Ember and Sproutcore, how do other efforts like Sencha stack up?
Your question covers a lot of ground. I will pick some quotes and answer them directly.
My project is to be a native-like HTML5 application with desktop level
complexity in need of a complete application framework
Ember.js specifically bills itself as a "web-style" framework, not a an RIA framework. That said, you can build anything you want, but you would be trailblazing.
Sproutcore bills itself as an RIA framework. You have complete control over the DOM, so if you can do it in the browser, you can do it in Sproutcore.
Ext-Js is also a good application framework for desktops (Sencha Touch is for Mobile). If you like the way its examples look, then its a good choice. You can of course customize the dom and write your own widgets.
Blossom is basically Sproutcore with a canvas based view layer. It just went into beta, so you would definitely be trailblazing if you went with it.
So, you can basically use any of the frameworks you mentioned for the RIA part of your enterprise. I would eliminate Ember.js simply because the framework itself purposes itself for web-style (e.g. twitter) as opposed to RIA (e.g. iCloud) apps, which is not what you want.
The widgets should be native-like (not web-like), but customizable so
to be unique to the application.
All three of your remaining options can do this. If you like Senchas widgets, its a good choice. I don't know if they are native enough for you. That said, with any of the remaining frameworks you can customize the DOM to your heart's content.
Mobile Appropreatness. Framework should be appropreate for mobile devices
This is a tough one. Sencha Touch (which is separate but similar to Ext-Js) is very popular and gets the job done. It is performant too; a non-trivial app ran fine on my original Droid (which surprised me).
Sproutcore is very heavy weight. It has mobile support (i.e. for touch events) but you need to very careful about the dom you create, so as not to overwhelm the browser. I wouldn't choose Sproutcore for mobile, although you could if you are very careful.
and blossom compile to native is not acceptable
That does not seem reasonable to me. To be clear, NONE of these frameworks run natively on mobile devices; they ALL run in the browser. Blossom comes closes as the canvas API is mapped directly to the native API, giving you a truly native app. The only way you could get closer would be to use objective-c/java for iOs and Android.
So basically, at this point your left with Sencha(Ext-Js) and Blossom. Blossom is still in Beta, you would be trailblazing if you tried it. Sencha is established, has great support (Blossom support is good on irc), and a large developer base.
So Sencha is the choice, unless you really want to be cutting edge, and take a little risk.
Troy. Indeed, ember can run with another view layer framework such as jQuery Mobile which can provide a "app-like" look and feel.There is a github project: https://github.com/LuisSala/emberjs-jqm. In my view, if you need very cool animation you can use blossom.If you want to build a app, SC or ember should be OK. I'll choose ember because it 's loosely coupled.
I'm architecting an enterprise web application using python, django. My final decision to make is which javascript library to use. I'm thinking about using Google's closure library or YUI3. Most of the development, I've used jQuery.I can code fast with jQuery but doesn't seem right for enterprise use.
YUI 3 seems pretty good. It includes most widgets I want to use, but Closure library does almost the same. Better offer with Closure library is they have Closure Compiler, but seems like Closure requires to write much more code than YUI 3. Documentation from YUI 3 is pretty good too.
The application will be for both web and mobile devices, so the library should not break in mobile device such as Android or iPhone.
If you were me, what decision would you make?
Disclamer
I mostly draw on comment about jQuery in enterprise environment and since I lack experience in YUI, I can not give any conscious advice for [not] using it over Closure.
But in lack of any other answers I'll share my experience with Closure.
Closure library
As for Closure library, which I have been using for last few projects but am, by no means, expert at it, I can say only good things.
Library provides the core components you need when building any kind of UI. But, unlike jQuery, it does not come with trillions of "ready-to-deploy" plugin-in scripts, or as some would say, with no batteries included.
It's got basic events, controls, xhr, dialogs, form components etc., and by my account the most important thing, namespaces (or at least something looking like them...).
With this you can create your own custom UIs limited only by your imagination and the power of JavaScript (and JS is very powerful language even if it does have its own annoyances).
And with help of Closure compiler, which not only minifies the code but it excludes all unused code, does type checking, gives warnings useful for debuging and so forth, it looks like solid foundation for building large applications ground up by teams of any size.
In my opinion, main reason for using Closure over jQuery in enterprise projects is consistency. Plugins are awsome but they tend to include inconsistency at all levels, either programming practices, visual styles and structure, performance, usage, you name it. Removing these small inconsistencies on large project can waste lot of time.
So in conclusion, if you have large project needing custom UI and a lot of flexibility Closure is the Right tool for the job. And with "namespaces" it even feels all Pythonish.
P.S. We also use Django on server side.
You have touched on most of the important aspects here, the type checking, minification, namespaces, but I would like to add a few more. Alongside is the templating sollution they offer, which is not only super fast and has full internationalisation support, this mixes in and compresses with the library. It also compiles down to java code so you can render on both the server and the client from the same template.
Then there is the component architecture which has a complete livecycle, seperates renderers from components, (if you are familiar with swing or flex you will get the idea), it has two models, one is client side rendering and the other is decoration which plays beautifully alongside the server side rendering.
The testing sollutions are well defined and now the
We have thousands upon thousands of lines of javascript and without closure it would have been an unmaintainable mess IMO.
I'd go with YUI 3. Especially if the only reason you're considering Google's Closure is the compiler. As this works well in YUI 3, with much better compression than the YUI compresser. I'm sure it doesn't do as good a job as it could with Closure code, but that's pretty hard to test.
The modular framework in YUI 3 is awesome, and there is enough sugar to give you a tooth ache without being too heavy. Yahoo use it for all their sites, and they have a strong emphasis on performance (so it can't be all bad).
In the tests I made, Google Advanced Compress is the better, and after the the Yahoo! YUI Compressor. You can make the tests here:
http://jsperf.com/closure-vs-yui
I am evaluating Rich Internet application solutions to use in next project. I have heard of following solutions -
Adobe Flex
extJS
Jboss Richfaces
IceFaces
Oracle ADF
JavaFX
Silverlight
GWT
I want to know if there are more solutions available.
I would appreciate if you can provide any valuable feedback on the above solutions.
IT Mill Toolkit is a "server-driven" framework built on top of GWT.
Comment: coming from a heavy PHP and Java-hostile background, I found Toolkit to be very pleasing to use pretty quickly. Being able to write nothing but (the strongly typed, nicely OO-oriented) Java is nice, considering the fact that what you change in the code is pretty instantially reflected on what you see in the browser.
It's a bit tricky to set up, but IT Mill has an Eclipse plugin that supposedly helps with that. The only thing is that the plugin itself is a tad unintuitive to use :)
0.02€
Reply to comment: The biggest difference between GWT and IMT is that GWT operates entirely inside the browser (a hostile/exploitable environment with e.g. FireBug), while IMT uses GWT only to render the server-side state. So, while you can edit any values you want in the browser with both GWT and IMT, GWT will happily accept the user-edited variable values, IMT keeps track on the values server-side, and doesn't allow any discrepancies between the client and server.
Another big difference is that GWT widgets need to be compiled every time you do any changes to them with the relatively time consuming GWT cross-compiler (compiles Java to JavaScript). IMT, on the other hand, needs only to be redeployed to the servlet container, and the changes are there, because the GWT widgets inside IMT don't need to be recompiled. With Tomcat, it's virtually instantaneous (i.e. as soon as Tomcat notices that Eclipse has recompiled the classes on the fly).
#the_drow: Not being familiar with Dijit, here's an answer: Dojo is javascript only, meaning it's client side only. Vaadin (née IT Mill Toolkit) lives partly in the server side too (calls itself "server driven"), so you can't hack the client side just by changing JavaScript variable values. There's a chart that compares Vaadin with other comparable products. Dojo isn't included, but JQuery is, which is vaguely similar to Dojo
i had an experience with Spring Webflow + Rich Faces with mixed results - time to get the results on screen is really short, but it's pain to fine tune the presentation part.
ie if you are building some tech oriented/backend
/standard GUIs - it's ok, if you are going to build a frontend used by millions web2.0-ers you end up messing with presentation part css/javascript big time.
After evaluating and reading various RIA solutions, I have finally selected GWT and GWT-Ext. I see these benefits for me and my team -
We are used to Eclipse so this is an advantage.
Ability to use Java Debugger in Eclipse is extremely helpful.
GWT Hosted mode in eclipse, so no compile and deploy required on every change.
Big developer community
Lots of ready to use components
Prior Java knowledge helpful
Similar to swing and the team have worked on Swing in earlier project.
Look and feel is also good
Maven support is also available.
Can write Junit test cases.
No other language knowledge required apart from Java.
Easy RPC configuration based on annotations.