KT Walrus Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm just getting into modding by adding some jQuery plugins to my board (there are tons of them out their and they are very easy to integrate). But, IPB uses Scriptaculous/Prototype (which doesn't seem as active as jQuery plugins are). My wish is that IPS would provide an alternate set of js that would use jQuery/jQuery.ui and allow us to select which version we want IPB to use. I know this is unlikely to happen (as it duplicates work), but it would help to be able to easily plug in jQuery modules and not require both to be loaded. I worry that loading two different js libs for a page will lead to conflicts and poor performance (jQuery has a call to eliminate most conflicts, but I have had to modify the jQuery plugins to not use the shortcut '$' which is a bit of a pain). Or, since jQuery seems to be the front runner and seems to be very easy to use, maybe IPB could just switch over to it in some future release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kfir Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I kinda agree. I'm not an expert, but I'm starting to learn jQuery and it's much more easier, and faster. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey_ Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Jaggi tried getting IPS todo the same thing, but IPS said no. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Good luck with that request. I don't think Rikki is interested in rewriting all js in IPB after he just did so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kfir Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I just read the whole thread about it. Well I hope he will consider it in a future version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Oh don't get Jaggi started... I would agree that jQuery is pretty awesome. I'm in the same boat where I don't have time to rewrite my code, or learn jQuery, so I stick with prototype. There are times where I wish I could take an array-like object and do "arrayobj.dofunctiononall()" instead of "arrayobj.each(dofunctiononall);" as I believe you can chain that further with jQuery, but I just don't have time at the moment. Really though I try to minimize javascript ussage whereever possible and only use it when it's convinient and degradable, so when I get to the point where I can it won't be too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rοb Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Yes, there have been a few discussions about this. Re-writing the code might be a pain at first, but long-term it would be better. Simpler code, more functionality, a fraction of the bandwidth and (as mentioned) a far more actively developed product. Speaks for itself! Now, where's Jaggi...Edit: D'oh! Just seen Luke mention him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT Walrus Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Maybe some good JS modder will do the port and post it for those of us who need it (even as a paid mod although there might not be too many willing to pay for this). Then, hopefully, if the mod is of high quality, maybe IPS would buy it and include it in a future update. I don't have enough experience to do this myself, but looking at it, it might not be too hard. I've replaced or added a few things with JS that uses jQuery (a lightbox and photo cropping), but I don't have the skill to mod someone else's code (just download packages from the web). Of course, I'm hoping that Rikki finds the time to do this since code that is used by more people tends to be better (or you hear the complaints quickly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Freddy G Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 What about this compromise? I have not tried it but it is worth a try.jQuery.noConflict() Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT Walrus Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share Posted September 12, 2009 What about this compromise? I have not tried it but it is worth a try.jQuery.noConflict() Yes. I use this, but then you have to substitute all instances of the shortcut '$' for 'jQuery' in all JS that uses this shortcut to refer to jQuery. I've done it so it does work, but you wouldn't have to edit the jQuery components if IPB didn't use Scriptaculous/Prototype. And, who knows what kind of inefficiencies and conflicts that aren't visible we are introducing by having both libraries running on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backdream Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Yes, there have been a few discussions about this. Re-writing the code might be a pain at first, but long-term it would be better. Simpler code, more functionality, a fraction of the bandwidth and (as mentioned) a far more actively developed product. Speaks for itself! Now, where's Jaggi... Edit: D'oh! Just seen Luke mention him! I request this when IPB at beta version, but IPS seems refuse it. Now almost all users can feel the slow JS, every page seems have a pause when load allover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey_ Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I don't get any lags with any IPB 3 installs. Not even IPS FORUMS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiTT Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Any news from IPB team? We would love to see jquery in ipb!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo2000 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Any news from IPB team? We would love to see jquery in ipb!.. I'm telling you, don't get Jaggi started ! Although I agree, it's so much better :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Any news from IPB team? We would love to see jquery in ipb!.. I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon, all of our JS is based around Prototype, and I don't think we're going to want to rewrite/test all of that anytime soon :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiTT Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon, all of our JS is based around Prototype, and I don't think we're going to want to rewrite/test all of that anytime soon :) Josh, i know it is hard work for the team and i know it is not easy decision for the product. Please dont understand me wrong because i am not trying to teach you guys how to do business..etc. I am just trying to tell what i think and I will switch from vb to ipb when 3.1 comes out. In my opinion, vbulletin's success relies on mods (vb.org). And i believe ipb should work on this more. No doubt jquery gives us a huge flexibility to create mods. As a prospective customer, i am trying to create my own unique design and i wanted to change the sidebar animation in forum home (copied the html and js to my comp to work on it). I think i spent around 3-4 hours lastnight to make slide-right and left fx with scriptaculous, without any success! I found custom blind-left and right effects functions but they werent what i was looking for. My aim was to change the sidebar effect (fade-morph one to a kind of accordion like effect). I could do what i want with jquery in few seconds. Look at http://www.ajaxrain.com/ ; jquery (495) - scriptaculous(45) tells everything. JS library is very very important and it would be great to have jquery on ipb. It may be hassle to rewrite all the js stuff but at the end boost everything up for us. IPB is very cute company and listens the customers. I hope you guys do your bests for this :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I understand where you're coming from, a lot of developers have mentioned jquery to us and we do see the advantages. Unfortunately, we have to weight the development time that would cost against the features we could have added using that same development time. For the moment, we feel that most of our customers would rather we spent time on adding/polishing features, rather than recreating a lot of JS code. That's not to say we'll never move to jquery, only that it won't happen in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiTT Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I understand where you're coming from, a lot of developers have mentioned jquery to us and we do see the advantages. Unfortunately, we have to weight the development time that would cost against the features we could have added using that same development time. For the moment, we feel that most of our customers would rather we spent time on adding/polishing features, rather than recreating a lot of JS code. That's not to say we'll never move to jquery, only that it won't happen in the near future. Appreciated with your honest answers, really. But please dont expect us to be silent on this for some time then :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Appreciated with your honest answers, really. But please dont expect us to be silent on this for some time then :) Understood ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Freddy G Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I LOVE JQuery <img src="http://community.invisionpower.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=":wub:"> :wub: <img src="http://community.invisionpower.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=":wub:"> :wub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Don't worry. Jaggi's got your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Arnold Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 We are almost to 2013 now... are we any closer to porting to jquery? considering you want a huge adoption of IP.Content and that 90% of templates to be ported to IP.Content use jquery now days... makes this one hell of a chore for anyone porting templates to IP content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimi Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ben Arnold" data-cid="2344365" data-time="1355462008"><p> We are almost to 2013 now... are we any closer to porting to jquery?<br /> <br /> considering you want a huge adoption of IP.Content and that 90% of templates to be ported to IP.Content use jquery now days... makes this one hell of a chore for anyone porting templates to IP content.</p></blockquote> 4.0 is being completely rewritten and will use jquery as confirmed multiple times by Rikki, Matt, and Brandon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 We are almost to 2013 now... are we any closer to porting to jquery? considering you want a huge adoption of IP.Content and that 90% of templates to be ported to IP.Content use jquery now days... makes this one hell of a chore for anyone porting templates to IP content. 4.0 and just so you know, IP.Content has jQuery, I do not understand your 'chore'... :ermm: you don't even have to write these jQuery plugins(I've written a fair few unique ones just for block templates :tongue: ), just use them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExsysTech Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The chore is that when porting jquery based templates to ip.content, the jquery files have to be all re-written to be jquery no conflict friendly in order to support the functionality of forums integration to work alongside the invision prototype javascript not to mention it makes for slow loading pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.