I have very small knowledge of Js so I cannot comment on the quality of prototype. However, standing on the shoulders of giants is always a good idea. Better then building your own tower to get that high :) So im all for this. Ber On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:05:08 -0800 Nedjo Rogers <nedjo@islandnet.com> wrote:
I really like the approaches implemented in drupal.js.
But I've been wondering--would we do better to use the now widely supported, and excellently designed, Prototype library (http://prototype.conio.net/ -- see documentation e.g. at http://www.sergiopereira.com/articles/prototype.js.html) instead?
The advantages would be that we'd be using a well supported open source library, rather than our own (nice, but not used elsewhere) solution. Doing so would allow Drupal developers to use the ever-expanding range of Prototype-based libraries, including:
moofx http://moofx.mad4milk.net/ behaviour http://bennolan.com/behaviour/ scriptaculous http://script.aculo.us
We'd still need some custom drupal methods, but we could reduce them to a minimum.
We could also draw on other open source CMS etc. softwares using Prototype, e.g, Ruby on Rails.
Doing so would require some refactoring of our existing javascript (autoexpand, etc.), but really not so much. And we'd be able to take advantage of some great features and methods in Prototype and its related libraries.
Prototype and its relatives are "MIT style" licensed, presumably GPL compatible, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses.
Thoughts?
-- Bèr Kessels Drupal services bler.webschuur.com www.webschuur.com ber@jabber.webschuur.com