I'm currently building a frontend architecture for quite a big site (9 digit monthly pageviews). One of the requirements is ability to fast changes as the businessfield changes, so I'd want to keep everything as lean as possible and thus am pondering about forgoing full-on MCV framework and just using jQuery (plugins) instead.
Here's how it would work:
First pageview, server renders the full page (in order to support crawling) - Loads data, renders it into template (mustache) and that into layout.
If history API is enabled, then next pageviews will be rendered with Javascript (data+mustache template), no hashrouting here (due crawlers). If not, then everything will be rendered serverside.
So, as clientside routing basically won't be needed at all, full-on MVC framework seems like a overkill.
So, here's what I'm thinking - Just do the data-loading & rendering as jQuery plugin. I'm currently even thinking about forgoing databinding as well, as the site is more about content than complex functionality, which would simplify the structure even more. Data changes could just be handled with re-rendering the content.
What kind of pitfalls does this approach have in such scale?
There are two general approaches:
First one - If your main requirement is ability to fast changes as the businessfield changes using an MVC framework might spare you a lot of grief in as using one of those leads to much cleaner and easier to maintain and extend code, even if you don't use all of its features, i. e. routing. Backbone is a good choice, if you're looking for a simple lightweight framework. On the contrary, when things start to become more and more complex, managing a growing jQuery application becomes increasingly harder, in comparison to backbone, angular, etc.
Second one - is stated in a nice abbreviation of YAGNI - You Ain't Gonna Need It. If you're certain you won't be delving in some complex frontend features, that requires data bindings, event composition, routing etc. in the forseeable future - why even bother considering MVC frontend framework? They are designed mainly to simplify creation of complex frontend applications, not to make simple things more complex. If all you ever gonna need is load server-side data and pass it to a template - then you might not even need jQuery for this, and do just fine with pure JavaScript.
So after all it's up to you to decide, does the complexity of your project call for more advanced tools, or you'd be fine with simple ones.
I'll preface this with that I'm new to AngularJS and still learning the best practices.
What is the best practice for integrating existing JavaScript features/plugins/code into an Angular application?
For instance when should the integrated JavaScript fire if a normal implementation fires when the DOM is ready?
Or should it be rewritten as a directive or can the JavaScript be used without any changes?
In my experience I have tried to follow instructions for using scripts such as JVFloat or SkeuoCard with limited success out of the box. I've been able to hack them into my code, but I'm not sure what the best practice would be.
Angular is a fairly large script, but it helps drastically reduce the amount of code needed for most projects. That said, it is likely that other libraries/plugins you are considering will be much larger than if you were to rewrite them using the power of angular. The Angular devs strongly recommend taking full advantage of the framework to offset its large size. The theory is that if you do this properly, Angular will save you bytes, not cost them.
To cleanly use external plugins, you'll need to wrap them as angular directives, so there is a bit of adaptation necessary that point. I have actually seen this done in a manner that was more verbose than if the developer has not used the plugin at all. It's not that it required a lot of code to wrap the plugin as a directive, it's just that the functionality of the plugin is so easily reproducible with Angular that the plugin was nearly useless.
Regarding DOM ready: Thinking the Angular way has a bit of magic about it. Because of the power of directives, $watch, promises, and data-binding, you don't think as much in terms of timing as you do relationship. If all is done well, the updates and behaviors will occur when they can (data is served, things are loaded, etc) and everything is updated automatically. Just build a simple app and you'll quickly see that Angular makes complex systems a cinch.
You might also be interested in this previous answer of mine: What does AngularJS do better than jQuery?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to create a custom UI framework in JavaScript for web applications (like Google Docs ui) (do not confuse with web application that deploy using languages like PHP, Python, etc.). However, after reading several books about web development, I understand that the best website is layered as follows:
Structure in HTML
Presentation in CSS
Behaviour in JavaScript
So there are several approaches to creating my own HTML document and control it in JavaScript. However in this approach HTML and CSS will be mixed, like in case of extJS UI. I am confused now, and I need some answers from experienced developers on how to write this kind of framework.
If HTML, CSS, and JavaScript is mixed.
What was advantages?
What was disadvantages?
Is there are other methods?
What was the usual type of creating UI frameworks?
I apologize that this answer is extremely long and at times may seem somewhat off-topic, but please keep in mind that the question was not very specific. If it is improved, or made less general, then I will gladly remove the superfluous parts, but until then, just bear with me. This is somewhat of a compilation of the other answers here, in addition to my own thoughts and research. Hopefully my ramblings will be at least somewhat helpful for answering this question.
General Tips for Frameworks
Frameworks are a ton of work, so don't spend all of that time for nothing. Work Smarter, Not Harder. In general, you should remember these things when creating a framework:
Don't Reinvent the wheel: There are tons of great frameworks out there, and if you create a framework that does the exact same thing as another framework, you've wasted a ton of your time. Of course, understanding what goes on inside another library is a great way to make your own library better. Quoting #ShadowScripter, "knowledge -> innovation." However, don't try to rewrite jQuery by yourself. :)
Solve a Problem: All good frameworks (and programs) start with a problem they are trying to solve, then design an elegant solution to solve this problem. So don't just start writing code to "create a custom UI framework," but rather come up with a specific problem you want to solve, or something you want to make easier. jQuery makes selecting and manipulating the DOM easier. Modernizr helps developers identify the features supported by a browser. Knowing the purpose of your framework will make it more worthwhile, and may even give it a chance of becoming popular.
Fork, don't rewrite: If the problem you aim to solve is already partially solved by another framework, then fork that framework and modify it to fully fit your needs. There's no shame in building of the work of others.
Optimize and Test: This is kind of a no-brainer, but before publishing version 1.0 on your website, test every single part of the function, under every single possible scenario, to make sure it won't crash and burn in production. Also, another no-brainer, minify your code (after testing) for performance benefits.
DRY and KISS: Don't repeat yourself, and keep it simple, stupid. Pretty self-explanatory.
Stick to Stable: (This is mostly my personal opinion) Unless you're trying to create a framework specifically targetted to HTML5 in Chrome 31, using experimental features and unstable code will make your framework slower, uncompatible with older browsers, and harder to develop with.
Open Source: (Another of my opinions) It takes years for huge companies like Google with thousands of dollars invested to create frameworks (e.g. AngularJS) so it is an excellent idea to make your source openly available. Having a community of developers contributing to your project will make development faster, and will make the end product faster, bug-free, and better all around. Of course, if you're going to sell it, that's another story...
For more information about best practices when making libraries, take a look at these links:
Javascript Library Design
Javascript Module Pattern: In Depth
Best Practices in Javascript Library Design
Building a Javascript Library
Types of Frameworks
The first thing you need to think about, as mentioned above, is what functionality you want your framework to provide. Here are is the list of types of frameworks/libraries (thanks to #prong for the link). For a much more comprehensive list, see jster, which has 1478 libraries, put into 8 categories, each with several subcategories.
DOM (manipulation) related
GUI-related (Widget libraries)
Graphical/Visualization (Canvas or SVG related)
Web-application related (MVC, MVVM, or otherwise)
Pure Javascript/AJAX
Template Systems
Unit Testing
Other
As you can see from the link, there are already dozens of libraries and frameworks in each of these categories, so there's not exactly much room for something new. That being said, I don't want to discourage you- who knows, you could create the next bootstrap or jQuery. So, here are some resources about each type of framework.
Note: you can't say that any type is better than the others, they simply are designed for different goals. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
DOM (manipulation) related
These types of libraries are designed to interact with, modify, and control the DOM of a website. Here are just a few of the things they do:
Select Elements in the DOM ($("div#id .class"))
Add/Remove Elements in the DOM ($("div#id .class").remove())
Edit Attributes of Elements in the DOM ($(div#id .class).height("30px"))
Edit CSS of Elements in the DOM ($(div#id .class).css("property","value"))
Add listeners for various events taking place in the DOM ($(div#id .class).click(callback))
The most notable of these, of course, is jQuery, and it has one of the largest user bases of any Javascript library. However, it is by no means perfect, and if your library wants to compete, the best thing to do would be to make it excel in the areas that jQuery fails- speed, fragmentation, and "spaghetti" code. (The last two aren't completely in your control, but there are certainly things that you can do to make it easier for users to use the most update version, and keep their code maintainable)
GUI-related (Widget libraries)
I think that this may be the type of framework you're looking to create. These types of libraries provide widgets (datepickers, accordians, sliders, tabs, etc.), interactions (drag, drop, sort, etc.) and effects (show, hide, animations, etc.). For these, people are looking for quantity- the best frameworks out there have several useful widgets/effects that work well. This is one case where it's "the more, the merrier," of course, if it works properly.
Graphical/Visualization (Canvas or SVG related)
The purpose of these libraries is to control animations on the page, specifically on an HTML5 Canvas. These feature animations and sprites for games, interactive charts, and other animations. Again, successful graphical libraries have many, many sprites/animations. For example kineticjs has over 20 different sprites available. However, make sure that quantity does not compromise performance and overall quality.
Web-application related (MVC, MVVM, or otherwise)
Basically, the idea is to provide a layout for the users to put their code in, typically separating the model (data) from the view(what the user sees), with a small controller to provide an interface between these two. This is known as MVC. While it is by no means the only software pattern to base a framework off of, it has become quite popular recently, as it makes development much easier (that's why Rails is so popular).
Pure Javascript- AJAX
This should really be two categories. The first, AJAX libraries, are often paired with a server side library and/or database (though not always) and are designed to make connections with a server and get data asynchronously. The second, "Pure Javascript" are designed to make Javascript easier to program in, as a language, provide helpful functions and programming constructs.
Template Systems
This might also be the type of framework you're looking to create. The idea is to provide components that developers can use. There's a thin line between Template Frameworks and Widget Frameworks (which twitter bootstrap, one of the most popular template frameworks, crosses a lot). While widget frameworks just give a bunch of little elements that can be put in a site, template frameworks give structure to a website (e.g. responsive columns), in addition to making it look good.
Unit Testing
This type of framework is designed to let developers test, or systematically ensure the correctness, of their code. Pretty boring, but also really useful.
Other
This type of framework is for really specific purposes that don't really fit into any of these other categories. For example, MathQuill is designed for rendering math interactively in web pages. It doesn't really fit into any other category. However, these types of frameworks aren't bad or useless, they're just unique. A perfect example is Modernizr, a library for detecting a browser's support for features. While it doesn't really have any direct competitors, can't be put into any of the other categories, and does a very small task, it works very well, and is very popular as a result.
More Types
There are a bunch of other types of libraries. Below are the categories (I'm not listing subcategories because that would take half an hour to copy down) that JSter puts their 1478 libraries into:
Essentials
UI
Multimedia
Graphics
Data
Development
Utilities
Applications
It depends on what you really want. The first distinction that needs to be made is between a Javascript UI framework (which provides structure to the app), an HTML UI Framework (Presentation) and Widget Libs.
Javascript Frameworks such as backbone, angular, ember, and knockout provide MVC-like structure to the app.
UI frameworks such as YUI, bootstrap, and Foundation provide a consistent HTML and CSS base.
Widget Libraries such as jQuery UI, Fuel UX, and Kendo UI provide ready made widgets.
There are also fully-fledged frameworks which provide things across the board, such as Google Closure tools, Dojo with Dijit.
This Wikipedia list pretty much sums it up, and here is the comparison.
In order to find the best way to create a framework, first ask this question: Can any of the above frameworks/libraries solve all or some of the problems/requirements I have?
If something solves all the problems, you can use it right away.
If something solves your problem partially, you can start by extending/forking that project/framework.
Follow DRY and KISS rules. Only solve a problem which nobody has solved as of now.
Fortunately, there is already a good solution: Google Closure Library. This is what Google uses. It shows the approach of mixing HTML, CSS and JS. I wouldn't say it's perfect, but I believe it's one of the best ones at this moment. Its architectural principles rely on proven component based and OOP concepts, and it's accompanied with a static compiler for Javascript. It's definitely worth of studying before baking your own solution.
I'd like to say that cloudcoder2000's answer sums it up nicely. I'm just writing this answer because it didn't seem right in the comment section :P
If you are thinking of making another framework, my suggesting is to stop thinking.
First find the thing in current implementations which troubles you the most, and try to find how you can improve it. Contribute to existing projects, nearly all of them are open source anyways. Also, you don't really need to be a JS-ninja to get into their midst. Take a fork, and get started. Once you're done, and feel that you're code is good enough, make it known to the original repo's maintainers that you have done improvements, and are looking for it to be merged into the project.
Keep in mind here that I'm not discouraging you from solving the problem at all.
I'm just pointing out that there are so MANY frameworks out there, wouldn't it be better if you went ahead and contributed to one of them instead of going for complete glory and implementing a full framework yourself? Making a framework is hard, but getting people interested in your framework is HARD. Really Really HARD, even for Google! Only once Angular got a very good documentation (which itself took quite some time, and resources, of Angular evangelists), that it has gathered so much steam. So, I'm just saying that instead of creating your own monument, perhaps lending a hand to others would be a more worthwhile exercise.
Most importantly though, is the fact that since you are just starting out, I presume you wouldn't have much experience designing frameworks, or thinking in those design terms even. It would of immense value if you contribute to existing projects. Then you will be gathering knowledge and experience of how things are built. Then, you'll be more confident. Then, you can go ahead and make your own framework! Then you'll be more equipped to tackle mammoth projects such as designing a framework. And Then, my friend, will you make something which would be worth the time of countless developers.
Short answer
Build a skinny DOM and only focus on JS code to make it more efficient.
Long answer
A good architect always replies with "it depends." You can't have one single framework that enjoys all others' benefits and suffers from no disadvantages, all at once. There's always a trade-off.
In order to create a framework that is really lightweight, you would probably want the lightest DOM (HTML) structure. However, having a skinny DOM might have the cost of more JS code. So you would probably try to write the most efficient code. You can start here.
Needless to say, you should be keeping the open-close principle, and have the stylesheets separated from HTML, using only classes and never inline styling. I would suggest using less. It makes the implementation faster, and the result is pure css so you suffer from no performance issues around it.
I must respectfully disagree with cloudcoder2000,
From a young age I have been being told don't re-invent the wheel, but why?
During the last 3.5 years, I have re-invented almost all of my web controls using javascript/html/css. From the extremely complex; for example a grid, rich text editor, tree view, dialog. To the very simple, like a progress bar, dropdown. What I gained is a better understanding of html/js/css.
No pain, no gain. I'm so happy with what I was doing these years as I learned more than others.
Some of the controls I re-invented, I think, are much better than the popular ones, like telerik, jquery mobile, extJS. For example, my tree view is fully customizable, with it one can build very complex trees.
So, I encourage you re-invent the wheels, and you will definitely get more than you expected. But also, from the beginning, you need to learn the source code of the popular controls, and re-invent them. You will be very happy when you find yourself be able to make the controls better.
Then the tips on creating HTML controls:
1. use jquery;
2. write jquery plugins(jQuery.prototype...) for simple controls, while define classes for complex controls;
3. separate css from html and js files. Define the html template in js, don't use html files, which make using the controls hard.
Regards,
Leo
For best performance in your UI design, you need to use a lightweight JavaScript framework like angular or backbone, Twitter Bootstrap for the UI, AJAX for base script load and use gzip compression in your app to make it lightweight and help the UI render faster.
I've been looking at quite a few of the MVC for JavaScript frameworks lately and I quite like the overall feel of Spine.js as well as the fact it is using CoffeeScript. That said, my primary concern at this stage is I need to be able to drop an MVC framework iteratively into a fairly large existing application. Most of the documentation that I have seen on Spine.js focuses on creating new applications.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to go about doing this; if there is a good tutorial somewhere that would be great too, but Google was not my friend on that one.
Or is this just a bad idea and I should go elsewhere when dealing with legacy? While Angular didn't click with me in the same way; it did however seem pretty straight forward on how I could use it iteratively with a legacy application.
I think it's rather a bad idea to do it "iteratively". I'm working as freelancer for a company where they decided to do a complete UI rework splited over a few releases. In the first stage it was planned to drop the existing JS and use spine js as MVC and require js as AMD. So far so good - but the process was "iteratively". The project/App is quite complex and it took over a half year (I'm involved since 2,5 months).
It was a big mistake to leave all the existing JS and "iteratively" replace the functionality for the release. We ran into multiple problems, because of that. If you have hundreds of js files, inline scripts, dependencies it's much easier to simply throw them away, because you can tell literally if your new code works or not. Otherwise you always have to distinguish whose fault is it: new or old code.
This was also responsible for trouble that could have been avoided, or at least alleviated, if it were a hard cut:
The product owner was not really aware of the status, because he couldn't see any visible progress. He only figured out bugs and misbehaviour. That was unsatisfying/frustrating for both parties. One quote I've heard over and over again: "It did work the other day/before - now it's not"
You start to update some outdated libs, plugins that sometimes will cause compatibility issues, because API's tend to change, so you have to fix that in your old code as well. Means: at some point it starts to feel like hacking around problems and not to develop a cool/good App. Thats's extremely frustrating too.
It took waaays longer than expected/estimated.
You've been developing in dependency of your old code that does not exist in the very end.
My personal advice is: don't do it iteratively. Do hot fixes for the live App and develop the new one on a separate branch.
I can't see how conforming any legacy app that didn't have an explicit mvc structure into a spine.js or backbone or angular etc. is likely to be a drop in experience.
Iteratively converting is going to be a lot like writing a new app minus the boilerplate stuff for defining the app GUI interaction. Start by focusing on models and controllers by pulling out components that fit well into the MVC structure. I would suggest early on to avoid certain app interaction components of Spine like stacks, and routes as those make a lot more sense once everything else is ready to be used according to spine convention.
I am an avid user of the YUI framework (http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/). It has its' strengths and weaknesses both performance wise and syntax wise. I have seen a bit of JQuery and I have worked a little with prototype as well but I have stuck mainly to YUI. My question is, is it better to stick with one Javascript library per application, or leverage the abilities of multiple javascript frameworks in your application?
I think it is better to use one framework for at least two reasons:
1. Code is easy to maintain because there is no syntax mix.
2. Application loads a little faster and I think should execute little faster.
My guess is that multiple frameworks is better as long as each has its purpose. If I'm building an ASP.Net web application with AJAX functionality, there may be some built-in ASP.Net AJAX Javascript libraries being used automatically that can be combined with JQuery to handle some situations. Alternatively, one could have third-party controls like Telerik's RAD controls that also bring in more Javascript code possibly. The key is to understand what each framework is adding in terms of rolling your own.
Sure less frameworks in the same website will make your life easier, so try as you can to use one framework, and if you are going to use more than one, take care from conflicts and redundancy.
If i am in your place, i will start searching the framework i have for some plugins and updates, if didn't find will add the new framework.
One more point: don't panic from using more than one framework, the big and famous frameworks such as jquery has its implementations to solve conflicts and work side by side with other javascript libraries
Also... if you use 2 diffrent frameworks at the same time, some functions in one framework could override an function in the other framework, and make ugly conflicts.. e.g the $() could be implemented in diffrent ways, and make something crash, if other functions of the framework is using it. (and they sure do!)
I think its better to use 1 framework in your development, for consistency of API and loading speed. the problem sometime is no framework is comprehensive enough to have all of our development needs.
This is just came into mailbox, their advertisement saying it's a comprehensive framework, with plenty of widget: grid with grouping, charts, forms, tab, fields and so. I haven't play it long, but it seems very promising. check here