reading one of the last ror weblog post the firrst thing that came to my mind experiencing rico effects was : WHAAOOOOO the second thing was: should i go for rico or for script.aculo.us? they seem to be based both on prototype ... aimed at the same functionnalities....but differents.... no?
On 7/1/05, olivier Hericord <olivier.hericord.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> reading one of the last ror weblog post the firrst thing that came to > my mind experiencing rico effects was : WHAAOOOOO > > the second thing was: should i go for rico or for script.aculo.us? > they seem to be based both on prototype ... aimed at the same > functionnalities....but differents.... > > no?Seeing as how scriptaculous is a "rails spinoff," (it''s actually checked into the same subversion repository) I''d go with it. But, use whatever works best for your application. -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
Script.aculo.us has broader browser support and is included in Rails by default. Most of the new ajaxed helpers use Script.aculo.us and Prototype. Most of Rico''s implementations don''t work in Safari. Cheers, -Justin On Jul 1, 2005, at 3:32 PM, olivier Hericord wrote:> reading one of the last ror weblog post the firrst thing that came to > my mind experiencing rico effects was : WHAAOOOOO > > the second thing was: should i go for rico or for script.aculo.us? > they seem to be based both on prototype ... aimed at the same > functionnalities....but differents.... > > no? > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >---------------------------------------------- Encytemedia.com Professional User Interface Design for Rails Applications
Tom Schutzer-Weissmann
2005-Jul-02 00:42 UTC
Re: so should we go for rico or for script.aculo.us?
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 15:42 -0500, Justin Palmer wrote:> Script.aculo.us has broader browser support and is included in Rails > by default. Most of the new ajaxed helpers use Script.aculo.us and > Prototype. > Most of Rico''s implementations don''t work in Safari.or in Opera. Well, most work, but Opera can be terrible at cleaning up redrawn areas, leaving parts of re-sized, or re-positioned, or even simply undisplayed elements hanging around where they oughtn''t be. Tom Weissmann ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Carl Youngblood
2005-Jul-05 23:55 UTC
Re: so should we go for rico or for script.aculo.us?
Perhaps the better question would be should script.aculo.us<http://script.aculo.us>borrow some ideas from rico? On 7/1/05, olivier Hericord <olivier.hericord.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > reading one of the last ror weblog post the firrst thing that came to > my mind experiencing rico effects was : WHAAOOOOO > > the second thing was: should i go for rico or for script.aculo.us<http://script.aculo.us> > ? > they seem to be based both on prototype ... aimed at the same > functionnalities....but differents.... > > no?_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
I tried both and from what I can tell script.aculo.us is superior. Rico has a 57K js file while script is only half that (I use prototype.js and effects2.js). Also, I found rico broke in IE whereas I''ve had no troubles with script. With that said - I really like this new Rico LiveGrid. If I had a need to show a large result set, I would give Rico another chance. On 5-Jul-05, at 7:55 PM, Carl Youngblood wrote:> Perhaps the better question would be should script.aculo.us borrow > some ideas from rico? > > On 7/1/05, olivier Hericord <olivier.hericord.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > reading one of the last ror weblog post the firrst thing that came to > my mind experiencing rico effects was : WHAAOOOOO > > the second thing was: should i go for rico or for script.aculo.us ? > they seem to be based both on prototype ... aimed at the same > functionnalities....but differents.... > > no? > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Simon Stapleton
2005-Jul-06 07:08 UTC
Re: so should we go for rico or for script.aculo.us?
If I might chime in... rico looks good as long as you''re on a supported browser, which safari isn''t. On an unsupported browser, certain functionality just plain doesn''t work (the live grid, custom drag and drop, custom drop zone demos for example) scriptaculous is smaller, and much more compatible. So, to get all the functionality, you can either work on scriptaculous to add functionality, or reverse-hack rico to get compatibility. my vote would be to add stuff to scriptaculous. Simon