Re: GSoC idea: adding JavaScript library / framework in gitweb

> Dear Jakub ,
>
>  could you please suggest any other ideas or features so that i can
> think upon them and come up with further good ideas.
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Chaitanyaa Nalla wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>  I am Chaitanya Nalla, a final year undergraduate student from India and I
>>> am pretty much interested in doing the project "Adding javascript library /
>>> framework in gitweb" suggested by respected Jakub.  I have good experience
>>> in javascript libraries like jQuery, Dojo etc. As per the goals of the
>>> project I will use the efficient, concise, cross browser compatible
>>> frameworks where ever needed.
>>
>> JavaScript library / framework is required not only to cover differences
>> between web browsers in DOM manipulation, event handling and Ajax with
>> XmlHttpRequest, but also add features which are still[1] lacking from
>> JavaScript such as handling cookies, formatting strings, date manipulation,
>> etc.
>>
>> Currently gitweb uses hand-crafted micro-library in `gitweb/static/js/lib/`
>> Using existing JavaScript library, be it jQuery (most popular), Dojo,
>> MooTools or YUI (probably too much for gitweb) will give us, as you said,
>> well tested code, and new abilities like client-side sorting of tables
>> which we would be able to use in further work.
>>
>> [1] http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2011/10/03/when-web-standards-fail-us/
>>
>>>                                Also I am planning to create a local library
>>> version with support for configuration and a good documentation.
>>
>> I don't quite understand what you mean here.  The JavaScript code specific
>> to gitweb would have to be modified to use chosen JavaScript library, but
>> I wouldn't say it is "local library".  I'd rather we use stock JavaScript
>> library, which would allow us to leverage existing CDNs like (for jQuery)
>>
>>  http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js
>>  http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-1.7.2.min.js
>>  http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.7.2.min.js
>>
>> We probably would ultimately need to be able to serve local fallback copy
>> (but this might be out of scope of GSoC project).
>>
>> This gitweb-specific JavaScript code (files in `gitweb/static/js/`)
>> is IMVHO quite well documented using JSDoc.
>>
>>> Using the DOM features of JavaScript and traversing the whole document
>>> object is quite cubersome and error prone, so I want to replace them using
>>> well tested libraries that are cross browser compatible.
>>
>> I think there is missing "using hand-crafted code" in this sentence
>> to make it sense.
>>
>>>
>>> Emulating onprogress in XMLHttpRequest :
>>>
>>> jQuery and YUI provide only statuses success and error.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> Even MooTools provide progress but are constrained to some browers
>>> only.
>>
>> To be more exact MooTools support 'onprogress' event handler only if
>> web browser supports it.  Not all do (e.g. older browsers), that is why
>> there is need for emulation using timers.
>>
>>> It can be handled by using $.ajax Transport utility .
>>
>> You mean in jQuery here, isn't it?  It would be a bit different, I think,
>> in MooTools or YUI.
>>
>> C.f. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5652229/javascript-framework-with-or-easily-extendable-with-support-for-xmlhttprequest
>>
>>> I will also take care progressive enhancement, by carefully implementing the
>>> basic functionality of the gitweb so that what ever may be the browser
>>> version and type, internet connection the basic functionality will not
>>> disrupted.
>>
>> Errr... "progressive enhancement" is about using client-side scripting
>> in such way, that even if web browser doesn't support JavaScript
>> (e.g. text browsers such as lynx, elinks or w3m), or has JavaScript
>> turned off or blocked, we would get a basic functionality.
>>
>> Note also that "progressive enhancement" part applies only to writing
>> new features, and this is strictly 'as time permits' part, I think.
>> But I thin that you would need to lay more complete proposal, i.e.
>> what features are you planning to add.
>>
>> --
>> Jakub Narebski
>> Poland