×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Book Review: Learning ExtJS 3.2

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Book Reviews 46

dulepov writes "An extensive set of features makes ExtJS a very popular framework. But a rich set of features comes with a cost: the framework is complex. While many frameworks can be learned from source, with ExtJS this is not the case. Syntax of object-oriented programming in JavaScript can be very difficult to understand and ExtJS sources demonstrate that. As a practical programmer, I think that the best way to learn ExtJS is to read a good book and follow examples inside.The ExtJS book I got was published by Packt Publishing. It is called Learning ExtJS 3.2. I consider myself an experienced ExtJS developer but there are always more experienced developers and this book was written by several of them." Read below for the rest of dulepov's review.When I looked through the table of contents, I realized that it is one of those rare books that suits all kind of readers: from beginners to advanced. The book starts from "Getting ExtJS" chapter. It discusses why ExtJS is different, how to get it, where to put it, etc. While this may seem like a chapter for beginners, I read it with interest and found several tips I will use in my next project. The opening chapter also tells what to do if the developer sees error messages. This is another advantage of the book: it is highly practical.

Further chapters describe how to use ExtJS. Here is what is covered: getting elements, creating and using forms, working with menus and toolbars, displaying and editing data with grids, using layouts for components (you can quickly rearrange objects by just applying another layout), creating tree controls, using windows and dialogs. There are also chapters about charts, effects and drag-and-drop. In addition there is a chapter about extending ExtJS. This area is probably one of the most difficult for programmers because this is not what the developer can find in the ExtJS package. The topic about extending ExtJS takes 38 pages, so it is really well covered.

Another interesting topic discussed in the book is data transfer between the browser and the server. There are traditional ways (such as AJAX) but ExtJS and the book go further discussing remote method invocation from the client on the server using ExtDirect. ExtDirect is a hot topic in the ExtJS community because it greatly simplifies communication between the client and the server. Thus the developer can save development time.

The final chapter in the book talks about useful additions to ExtJS such as HTML editor, state management on the browser side, using AIR, etc. It also describes several community extensions to ExtJS (such as TinyMCE and SwfUploadPanel) and how to use them.

The book contains a lot of examples, so the reader can learn through them. One side note here (and a recommendation to Packt editors): I found that spacing in the examples could be smaller to avoid line wraps. Reading examples would be easier if the spacing was reduced. Truly speaking, this is the only bad thing I can tell about the book.

Despite being experienced in ExtJS and using it since version 1.x, I found a lot of good tips in this book. It is really useful and now lives on the shelf among good programming books. So if you need a good learning resource about ExtJS, I can definitely recommend Learning ExtJS 3.2 .

P.S. Current version of ExtJS at the time of writing of this review is 3.3.1. That does not make the book obsolete at all.

You can purchase Learning Ext JS 3.2 from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

46 comments

Too soon, Packt, too soon. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35507026)

1) Packt Publishing Book: Check!
2) 8/10 or 9/10 score: Check!
3) Recommend buy: Check!

"Hi, I'm Packt Publishing and I approve of this Slashvertisement!"

Moon Crickets! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35507060)

Big lipped, blue gummed, white palmed, ghetto rat fucking jungle bunny nigger bastards.

Re:Too soon, Packt, too soon. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507160)

The problem with Packt publishing is that often, they're the ONLY ONES who produce a book on your particular subject.

Hell, Packt's published more information about Moodle's PHP API than THE MOODLE TEAM has. *grumble*

Re:Too soon, Packt, too soon. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507264)

The problem with Packt publishing is that often, they're the ONLY ONES who produce a book on your particular subject.

Why review them then? A simple "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" should suffice, since you don't have any other choices.

From Beginners to Advanced (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507076)

I have a hard time with any educational or technical material which claims to be appropriate for everyone from beginners to advanced. If you cover that much material, your book is either several thousand pages long or you are probably not truly serving at least one of the ends of the spectrum.

Re:From Beginners to Advanced (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507268)

I have a hard time with any educational or technical material which claims to be appropriate for everyone from beginners to advanced. If you cover that much material, your book is either several thousand pages long or you are probably not truly serving at least one of the ends of the spectrum.

Or laser focused on one tiny little thing...

Next up on /., "Learning printf on GCC 4.1.1" in 432 pages

Current version of GCC at the time of writing of this review is 4.4.5 assuming you use Debian Stable. That does not make the book obsolete at all.

Re:From Beginners to Advanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35508008)

Is this, like, an extension for the JQuery language?

Re:From Beginners to Advanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35508740)

No, its based on the Yahoo User Interface library.

Re:From Beginners to Advanced (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508768)

If you have libraries (jquery, mootools, prototype, etc) and frameworks (cappuccino, sproutcore, google's gwt, etc), then ext is somewhere in the middle. I think it started as an extension to YUI, but now it can be used on top of prototype, jquery, YUI, or its own base library.

"Advanced" is relative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35509358)

Keep in mind that this is a JavaScript library. Everything in JavaScript is so dumbed-down or just plain idiotic that the difference between "beginners" and "advanced" is almost non-existent.

Need a 'publisher' preference (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507198)

Too bad I would have to block all book reviews from showing, with no way to limit it to only the shill Packt reviews.

Who votes these up, anyway? Or does the firehose only get used to make us feel like we have a say in things..

ExtJS 4 Preview is already out (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507332)

Why buy a book on 3.3.1 when the API and (preview) code for 4 is already out? By the time you've learned 4, the stable release will probably already be released. That's the problem with technical references that are printed in hard copy - they take too long to get to market and can't be updated like references on the net.

Re:ExtJS 4 Preview is already out (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507786)

If you know ExtJS, you'll know that the API has remained pretty stable and constant since 2.0. (I've been able to port my code from 2.2 to 3 with almost no changes, for instance.) Not to mention that when web applications are developed with a specific version of framework like ExtJS in mind, they tend to stay frozen to that particular version (if it ain't broke, don't fix it, etc.). I can definitely see how this particular book could still be useful years from now.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35507372)

Not a very in depth review. It's probably a good book, i've been helped by a couple of the authors in the past.
Timing is a little off, with extjs 4 coming out in the next week or so. Should be mostly backwards compatible, but supposedly there is enough changes in the recommended ways to use and extend the code to maybe make this book outdated.
I'm still going to take a look at it to see if theres anything useful i'm not already doing.

vs. jQuery? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507448)

In what category of animal does ExtJs fit vs. jQuery combined with jQuery UI?

jQuery has basically broken away from the pack [google.com] from other Javascript toolkits/frameworks/libraries. (Which is not to say they all have the same purpose.)

When you've got a lot of players in the field, and have to decide what to use, and are also thinking about new devs already being familiar with a package, going with the market leader seems to be what most people will do.

The $ and css-based selector syntax of jQuery makes it highly welcoming for devs that have to learn Yet Another Library. See also [stackoverflow.com] .

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507564)

I use 'em both all the time. If I'm coding a web app (or even a new page in an existing web app) from scratch, I'll use Ext. Once you wrap your head around OOJS and Ext's API, it's widget set is far easier to use and more consistent than jQuery. OTOH, if you are enhancing and existing page, then jQuery is tops. There are even times when *gasp* I use 'em both on the same page. No, you don't want to be loading lots & lots of library code, but for apps that don't go over the internet, and are used within an enterprise that has a decent network, there isn't a big penalty for using both and there can be a huge productivity boost.

Writing applications anymore doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition.

Re:vs. jQuery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35507582)

ExtJS has an incredible collection of widgets and components that allow you to build full rich applications without having to know (or having to manipulate) anything about the DOM or css. Last time I checked (I have to admit it was long ago) jQuery UI was pretty limited.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508224)

Mostly because the philosophy of jQuery seems to be embracing CSS and the DOM, rather than abstracting them away. It often feels like the API that was missing from the W3C spec.

The other, bigger reason I personally have been avoiding EXT is the attitude of the core developer(s) about the GPL -- in particular, they not only switched to the GPL lately, but they have a fairly perverse understanding of the GPL which suggests that using EXT would to build a frontend would require me to open source my entire backend. I'm all for open source, but given the choice between something GPL'd and something effectively BSD, I'll go with BSD unless there's a compelling reason not to.

This may have changed recently, but I distinctly remember having to strip EXT from a commercial product simply because we could not afford to either be stuck with an old version of a framework or pay licensing fees for a javascript toolkit. We switched pretty much entirely to jQuery, MooTools, and home-grown stuff.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508798)

They use GPL not because they want you to share but because they want you to buy a license so you don't have to share.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35509136)

Right, which I mentioned explicitly:

This may have changed recently, but I distinctly remember having to strip EXT from a commercial product simply because we could not afford to either be stuck with an old version of a framework or pay licensing fees for a javascript toolkit.

What's worse, they went from not requiring that to requiring it, and they demanded more than the GPL asks for. In particular, they decided that the entire application included both the frontend and the backend. It probably wouldn't have been OK for us to GPL our frontend either, but both frontend and backend was out of the question.

Note that this disallows quite a lot of things which would otherwise make sense. For instance, if I develop some sort of backend-agnostic frontend in EXT, are people only allowed to ship it with fully GPL'd sites? What if it pulls data from, say, Google -- can they now demand all of Google's source as well? What if I use an entirely frontend-agnostic backend, something like CouchDB, so the entire application is effectively JavaScript -- would I then be in violation since CouchDB is Apache licensed?

Just where do you draw the line between merely interoperating with a server, and having that server be an integral part of your application?

I understand the business model. I'd probably even be ok with it if it was applied sanely, though I'd probably avoid it for my own projects -- at the end of the day, I like the simplicity of a BSD-like "do whatever you want" license. But to insist that JavaScript and PHP, say, are somehow "linked" in the GPL sense of the word is insane.

Re:vs. jQuery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35510648)

Whats wrong with the licensing? If you want to keep your product closed, buy a damn license. If you want a free license, then you will need to open source your code. I've never understood why people complain that something is not free and open when they want to build closed and non free products.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525770)

I know you're an AC, and maybe I'm foolish to expect more, but your main point:

If you want to keep your product closed, buy a damn license.

I answered in the post you're replying to:

we could not afford to either be stuck with an old version of a framework or pay licensing fees...

This point is even more asinine:

I've never understood why people complain that something is not free and open when they want to build closed and non free products.

The complaint isn't that it's "not free and open", it's that it's problematic for non-GPL'd stuff, proprietary or otherwise, and even for GPL'd software which wants to connect to non-GPL'd servers. Presumably you have no problem with the fact that your web browser, whatever its license is, can connect to a server running non-free code? Would you prefer it demanded the source code of every site you visited?

But see, as I pointed out, the author of EXT seemed to be insisting that this is what the GPL means:

they have a fairly perverse understanding of the GPL which suggests that using EXT would to build a frontend would require me to open source my entire backend.

Replace "my backend" with "any website I want to script with EXT" and you start to see the problem. What if I were to open-source the client? What if others were to write varying backends, proprietary and otherwise? Is this now a genuinely independent client, or is it a library that's being linked against, illegally in some situations?

This is why, even when I write entirely open source code that's never intended to be closed, I just go with BSD or MIT -- something that lets me ignore the legal bullshit and just write code.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508226)

We use ExtJS at work to do web forms.

It comes in two parts, a 'base' and the rest of it. The default base can be swapped out for jQuery (or a couple of other JS libraries) via an ExtJS 'adapter' which deals with various things including namespace issues, so use of both jQuery and ExtJS is officially blessed.

We evaluated a few others, but ExtJS's widget set seemed more comprehensive. (The killer at the time for us was a robust tree control supporting drag and drop.) Having used it for a while, it is fairly complex, but whenever you think something is way harder than it should be it generally turns out to be for sound architectural reasons that you didn't appreciate when you began. Even without a support contract, support in the general "free" forums has been quite good as long as you post sensibly.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508942)

Good that ExtJS is working for you.

Back a while ago (few years ago), I would go to dojotoolkit.org, check out the demo, and wonder if Dojo was slow for everybody, or was it just me?

Re:vs. jQuery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35511682)

Dojo's default setup (and the one at dojotoolkit.org) does a lot of synchronous loading. A simple calendar picker by itself can (by default) result in 50 web hits as JS, CSS, etc. is pulled down. That's when it "feels" slow. Pull up Firebug and you'll cringe.

Standard practice in Dojo for production is to create a "custom build" that packages up the JS and CSS you need, reducing these 50 hits to 2. They have tools that make this easy. Do that, and Dojo is suddenly the fastest toolkit out there (though coming up second to JQuery for a couple of specific API calls) There is work to make things auto-aggregated together that will make it unnecessary to even perform this step.

The best thing about Dojo is it is an *extremely* well-thought out, forward-compatible FRAMEWORK with full i18n and l10n. If you are splashing some animation effects on some web pages, JQuery is easy to learn and fine. But if you need to extend the framework, adding your own widgets, etc. (e.g. a complex web application that will be upgraded over the years) then Dojo is the winner, hands-down.

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35509758)

The $ and css-based selector syntax of jQuery makes it highly welcoming for devs that have to learn Yet Another Library.

God, really? The worst decision the designers of jQuery, Mootools, etc made was to all decide to use $ as their base object. There's no reason why the couldn't just call it jQuery instead, but they had to go and use one character that everyone else also decided was so cool that they would use that for everything they did too, and now everything either overwrites each other or you need to use alternative methods to access it. They should have just named their objects in a meaningful way in the first place. jQuery is the worst offender, because they made $ a function object, so you can either call it like a function or access a property or method of it. I don't think that's very intuitive at all to developers trying to make sense of the code. Nothing I saw in jQuery made any sense until I realized that "$" alone was a valid identifier. I didn't realize that was a valid identifier, I thought I was looking at some weird Javascript syntactic sugar I hadn't seen before. I thought it was an operator, not an identifier.

Also, the CSS selector-based way to access elements is actually now native to browsers, that's not jQuery-specific. As always, older versions of IE still in use don't support it, but that's why things like jQuery exist (to make the browser abstract).

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35510232)

Could be worse...

_ = function(_){ return { _: "brainfuck 2.0"}; }

_(_._)._

Re:vs. jQuery? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517618)

That's definitely worse, but not a whole lot worse than $($.$).$

Which itself is only marginally worse than jQuery(jQuery.jQuery).jQuery

Not exactly the most welcoming type of thing for a new user. Is it a function? Is it an object? Is it a property? Yes!

It's like they only did it for the novelty of the thing, not because it's useful in any way. My CSE 100 classes taught the benefits of meaningful variable names. These guys must have skipped the intro classes.

Re:vs. jQuery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35510710)

You can put jQuery in compatibility mode which doesn't use the '$' as a reference(otherwise if you're using a library like prototype, you get serious conflicts). I find this fixes most (but not all) of the problems. Your best bet though is to avoid using too many libraries from different vendors.

Re:vs. jQuery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35510062)

Agreed; the css-based selector syntax is what made jQuery great, but it's solving the wrong problem. Building large scale applications by dealing with DOM nodes is just the wrong idea-even if jQuery makes it tremendously easier. JavaScript has reached the point where you want to be able to assemble applications from UI components similar to developing desktop apps. And BTW, if you think jQuery UI matches up well with ExtJS you haven't looked seriously at either of them. I was on a project that (because of jQuery's popularity) attempted to convert from ExtJS to jQuery UI less than a year ago-it was a complete train wreck. jQuery UI just doesn't have the range of components or feature set that ExtJS has; it's truly not even close. ExtJS even has it's own css selector engine called DomQuery which is jQuery-esque(but in my opinion, not quite as good; I keep hoping ExtJS will adopt Sizzle at some point).

I'm not affiliated with Sencha at all, I'm just a regular web programmer that's used most of the 'major' Web 2.0 frameworks-no different than a lot of people I'm sure. If you're looking to develop a web app that's UI heavy, ExtJS is your best bet.

Lost? The title sencha to the wrong place... (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35507590)

It ain't Ext any more, and Slocum is long gone.

Ext is now Sencha:
http://www.sencha.com

Rob

Re:Lost? The title sencha to the wrong place... (1)

Stunning Tard (653417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35508102)

ExtJS lives on as one of Sencha's products.

Re:Lost? The title sencha to the wrong place... (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35510258)

sencha? That sounds like some sort of fetish where you shove a popsicle up your ass and a midget punches your balls while a woman wearing nipple clamps forces you to eat her puke. What sort of sick fucks are they?!?!!?!?

Ext JS 4.0 will be released in April or May! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35508536)

And Ext JS 4.0 is not a small release. The difference is huge (in a good way) so I hope the book will be updated soon.

38 pages == good :) (1)

MikeTheGreat (34142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35510008)

The topic about extending ExtJS takes 38 pages, so it is really well covered.

Well, if more pages == more good, then I guess I ought to go looking for an even bigger book! :)

I would have loved to know what it is in those 38 pages that cover the topic of extending ExtJS well. Even basic info about the 38 pages (it walks you through a single example in detail over 38 pages; it starts with a small example & builds on it over 38 pages; it covers sub-topics X, Y, and Z in detail (and X,Y, and Z are particularly important/difficult to do/etc), or whatever) would help me know if this book will be useful to me.

On a more serious note - I appreciate the reviewer taking the time to read through the book, and I appreciate being made aware of this particular title. Much thanks to samzenpus for going out of his/her way to post this!!

Need better summaries (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35510052)

I know this is "News for Nerds", but you know what would have made this post better? A 1-sentence description of what ExtJS means. Sure, I figured it out from context that "JS" meant "JavaScript", but what's the "Ext" indicate? "Extended"? "Extensions"? Is ExtJS part of the JavaScript standard that every browser includes? Why should I care about ExtJS?

At the very least, include a link to the ExtJS [wikipedia.org] entry at Wikipedia. (At least, I assume that's the right link?)

Re:Need better summaries (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#35510880)

Obviously ExtJS is a Linux file system type implemented entirely in JavaScript. It's built as a browser-based extension of FUSE.

At the risk of writing flamebait... (2)

bmuon (1814306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35512194)

ExtJS sucks.

Yes, it has a lot of features. But no, it doesn't scale well when what you need is granular control of how javascript loads and executes, and it doesn't help multiple developers working on different modules. Lots of hardcoded references to global objects, long namespaces, HUGE file downloads. It just doesn't add up. Sencha needs to really step up if it wants to stay competitive with a paid product.

Way better alternatives are YUI3 [yahoo.com] and GWT [google.com] . Even ideas such as Wijmo [wijmo.com] perform better.

Re:At the risk of writing flamebait... (1)

The Car (1846356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35512930)

I agree to an extent. I ended up ditching ExtJS and rolling my own editable grid, server communication, popups, etc. Of course, I had very specific "low level" (if one can even say that for JavaScript) requirements for functionality and render optimization. ExtJS is great for getting a UI up and running quickly.

Re:At the risk of writing flamebait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35513228)

I think that you should first learn Javascript. There is nothing in Ext per se that makes it not scale. Programing in Javascript has its challenges, but this is something you will face for any JS framework. As per "granular control of how Js loads" you should know that the best practice is to not do a granular load but try to join all your js into a single compressed resource. Ext has an excellent Component model that alows multiple developers work on different modules easy. I really think that you didn't take the time to learn it.

Its a great pleasure reading your post. Its full o (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35512286)

Its a great pleasure reading your post.
Its full of information I am looking for
and I love to post a comment that
"The content of your post is awesome" Great work
Orange County PC and Mac REPAIR SERVICES Starting at $69.00. Reliable and honest.Serving IRVINE,
CA and All Orange County CALL NOW (949) 456-0914Do your research, ask plenty of questions,
be sure to ask about who's going to show up to do your repairs.
Don't get caught up in these companies that have flat rate prices,
you'll pay too much. If you need more memory just let us know, we usually have it
with us and we'll put it in for FREE, you just pay the cost of the memory, some companies are charging $99.00
  to do this 3 minute task. We also carry a large selection of parts with us,
(routers, mice, power supplies, etc..) to sell as a convience for
you at just 10% over our wholesale cost

To be fair... (1)

drgroove (631550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35513432)

I only spent 10 seconds looking at the website of ExtJS' producer, Sencha. But... the first thing I noticed is that ExtJS is available both as open source, and as a commercially licensed product that one pays for. Errrr... OK. So, which is it? Frankly, any software product that is available as both open source and as a commercially licensed product is ... well, it's scary. The last thing I want is an "open source" framework where the producing company has the ability to pull the rug out from under me and start charging me, or claiming that any product I've personally developed that uses their code infringes on their IP. I'm all good with commercial / closed source software - don't get me wrong. Capitalism rocks and all - go America. But, pick a license and stick with it. The whole license bifurcation thing is just too shaky. Didn't anyone listen to Mr. Miyagi? Open source yes? OK. Open source no? OK. Open source maybe? Squish like grape.

Thank You For The Review (1)

CutterBl (2018934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35514382)

@samzenpus,

Thanks for the great review. I'm really glad you enjoyed the book, and especially that you were able to get something tangible to use. It's great to see that kind of feedback. When I first started learning Ext JS there weren't any books out there. I spent hours reading through the demo code, and combing through the forums. When Packt contacted me to help complete the first book I jumped on it, knowing that there were other developers out there like me that would learn more (and faster) from a book resource.

For those who complain about the licensing,

I see your point to a degree, but on another level I am baffled. I use JQuery and JQueryUI everyday where I work, and there are tons of things I love about JQuery. I read code, and have a huge amount of respect for John Resig, and the rest of the JQuery/UI teams. But, to put it simply, JQueryUI is an infant by comparison to Ext JS, and vastly incomplete. You can't write web applications without a datagrid component, or even a tree, nor does JQuery have anything even closely resembling a Data Store (no, the $.data() methods don't count). Yes, there are alternative plugins for some of this, but none of them (IMO) is complete either, nor are their architectures and API's consistent with the rest of JQueryUI. It's an apples and oranges comparison (really look over the demos and API's of all options and you'll see what I mean).

Ext JS is a complete package, with a paid development team whose responsibility it is to maintain consistency, enhance functionality and performance, and to innovate. This is never more evident than when reading through all of the materials that have been put out on the upcoming Ext JS 4. Our book (it did come out in October) is still timely, in that the base model of how to approach most things is unchanged, and it gives the reader a clearer understanding of how to work with this OO modeled, extensible, event driven framework that originally forked off of YUI.

If you still don't agree with licensing all of this, that's OK too. I push code here and there now and again, but I honestly don't have the time myself to reinvent what has already been done. To me, it's worth the fee. If you can write all of these things yourself, for less than the cost of an Ext JS license, then I strongly urge you to join the efforts, and contribute to bring JQueryUI to the same level of quality. They can use, and would welcome, the assistance.

Steve "Cutter" Blades

World Yellow Pages for Higher studies (1)

globodyne47 (1988218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35526800)

World Yellow Pages for Higher studies.Find University, Institute, Colleges World wide & talk business.Free Listing www.kezkostudy.com
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...