I've been recently experimenting with one of the widely recommended MVC client-side frameworks (Backbone, in this case). I find it quite nice, but I have an issue with it: suppose I'm building a list of contents, which I want to present on browsers using client-side rendering, but also want to make available for search engines, which do not run javascript. That means, I'll also have to render stuff on the server-side. Now, let's say I'm using Handlebars.js, whose template language is inherited from mustache. All is well. But on the server, I'm using ERB (or HAML, whatever). That means, I'll have to support more than one version of the same template. Which is just unmaintainable, for cases where your templates going beyond the list-element 4 lines of code. How are the big platforms working around this issue?
Related
I am intending to build a fairly comprehensive (read: complex) search form using razor pages in a dotnet core webapp. One of the features of this page will (I intend) be live/dynamic updates (search results refresh as search parameters are typed/chosen) and that the displayed browser URL is updated to reflect the search parameters as they are changed.
In order to prepare for this I've been looking for documentation on how to build this page and it seems to me that while Razor pages are easy (fun?) to build for basic page designs, having dynamic (read: partially refreshed) components requires the use of more basic (read: not framework supported) JavaScript.
While I have found articles like this which document how to do the 'live update' I'm not sure if this is really the best approach.
I don't know if frameworks like VueJS (which would be the alternative option, due to in-house skill set) make dynamic/live updating of the browser URL any easier (by virtue of their framework features).
Does VueJS, though it is more front-end heavy, provide a stronger platform for developing a live/dynamic refreshed page than Razor pages or am I simply missing some fundamental (perhaps too easy?) feature of Razor pages which provides for quick/easy development of dynamic, partial page updates?
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 converting a good old ASP.Net website to a single page application using Ember.js in a ASP.NET Web API project.
All the devs of my team and myself are pretty new to javascript. We spent the last 2 weeks learning the basis and comparing SPA frameworks. I apologize in advance if my question sounds stupid :)
All the Ember tutorials I have found so far included all Handlebars templates into one single file. I assumed it would be pretty obvious to split them into separates files (*.hbs) when the time would come, but it's not. I might be totally missing something here, but I found about 4 ways to get my templates back when I need them. I'd like to know which method you would recommend:
Concatenate and then inject all the template files when the app loads. I could write some C# code on the server-side that concatenates all the templates files into a single one when the app loads (i.e. each time a visitor enter the app). It seems odd to me, in terms of processing, but also because the generated HTML file will be pretty heavy.
Load each template dynamically via Ajax when I need it. Pretty much what is done here. I kinda like this solution even though I haven't tried it yet. It makes sense to me to get asynchronously a template when I need it instead of loading the entire app on the first load.
Use the Bundling mechanism of Asp.Net MVC. I found stuff like csharp-ember-handlebars to precompile the templates on the server-side and return them as a single javascript file. It works-ish but I feel like the precompiled file will become pretty heavy as I add new templates.
Use Grunt with the plugin grunt-ember-handlebars to precompile the templates. I'm not familiar with Grunt but if I understand well all the devs working on the project will have to install Node.js + Grunt + learn how to use a command prompt + remember to run the command before each commit (if they modified a template). This is not obvious for the web designers. And adding grunt to the build actions will require the entire dev team (working on other projects) to have grunt on their machine (not acceptable).
I need to find a simple and elegant solution to address this issue. My project is in a solution with 35 other projects and I cannot add too much complexity to the build, neither depend on unstable libraries. Maybe I have been too optimistic when I thought I could use Ember for my project. Any suggestion would be welcome!
Your #3 is the most ideal (and common) way that I've seen applications handle templates. With a compiled and minified template file you really don't have to worry to much about performance problems in regards to adding new templates, especially if you take advantage of caching.
One benefit to having the templates compiled and available off-the-bat is that users only need to Download Your Resources Once™, as apposed to downloading resources for each subsequent page load. This leads to a fantastic user experience.
We write a lot of intrasite modules and are noticing that they really deviate now in SF 4+ from the content-based ones. So, on that note, I have some questions:
How do you get the EXACT look and feel of the standard modules for the edit/create form? For example, how do you eliminate the menu above, center the form, etc, as in, say, the Events module?
How do you add an actions menu dropdown to a radgrid, same as you'd see in the grids for standard modules?
How do you incorporate Sitefinity fields into the usercontrols? For example sf:ImageField throws script errors when added to a control? Also, is there documentation on each of these fields and how to configure?
---finally---
If we really want that standardization, do we have to go with another module type?
4.Is there a module type that will allow us to access non-sitefinity data (ie separaate db
but also provide us with exactly the same functionality and UI experience as the content-
based modules?
intra site modules are simply custom user controls (ascx) placed into backend pages to add your custom functionality to the backend. To copy the look and feel of the rest of the site, I literally copy and paste the HTML into the control.
I did a webinar on this a while back, including code to recreate the backend editor. It appears to still be valid, and is available here: http://www.sitefinity.com/blogs/joshmorales/posts/josh-morales-blog/2011/06/30/sitefinity_intra-site_module_webinar_notes
the centered view is a bit different, and I don't have that html, but you could potentially do the same (copy it from another native page). I don't always get it 100% accurate (my controls are usually laid out different from what Sitefinity does) but I get close enough so that it doesn't break the user experience.
The actions menu could be recreated with javascript, but if you are looking for NATIVE integration that does all this for you, indeed you would be looking at inheriting or much better yet: simply using the module builder, which lets you build custom types that automatically install themselves into Sitefinity as if they were regular modules.
Fields are definitely designed to run inside the context of native sitefinity module definitions (the classes that make up the UI using the Sitefinity context). This doesn't mean you can't include Sitefinity content in your modules; it simply means if you do you'll have to implement the integration yourself using the API.
On your last question, the only way to use external data but still keep the "Sitefinity Content" UI is to inherit from Content, then create a custom provider that reads from your database and translates it into the Sitefinity content type. It is certainly possible, but is quite a big project.
Unless you are in full need of this tight integration, I recommend simply going intra-site, linking to Sitefinity content types,taxonomy, etc through the API and manage it separately.
I hope this was helpful!
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