Example (I don’t know if Ajaxian is going to escape my entities – sorry if this comes out unreadable):

PHP-style:
<ul>
<?js for (var i=0;i<employees.length;i++) { ?>
<li><span class=”name”><?js text(employee.firstName + ‘ ‘ + employee.lastName + ‘ (‘ + employee.title + ‘)’); ?> </span> </li>
<?js } ?>
</ul>

ASP.NET-syle:
This can also be done with custom XML tags
<ul>
<js:forEach collection=”items” item=”item”>
<li>
<span class=”name”&gt<js:output value=”employee.firstName + ‘ ‘ + employee.lastName” /<</span>
<js:output value=”employee.title” /<
</li>
</js:forEach”>
</ul>

The library can be grafted onto any framework. What do y’all think of the concept?

What I find a little interesting is using (and developing) libraries that provide specific functionality without imposing a set of design decisions on the developer with regards to any functionality not provided by the library. For example, Lightbox (http://www.lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/) provides pop-ups and only pop-ups, without having its own Ajax library and DOM traversal helpers. Scriptaculous (http://script.aculo.us) provides a layer of animation, and while it uses Prototype, you don’t have to… However, the presence of Prototype might cause problems with the “$” function.

Enjoy the Fall :)

If GPL is the #1 license, why do you have exceptions to allow extensions to be liberally licensed? Worried that Ext will come to a grinding half if all the extensions were also licensed under GPL. Ext is as hypocritical and two-faced as it gets.

And you don’t control who gets to voice an opinion on the Ext shenanigans . It is not limited to Ext users. In your high and mighty mind it may be, but most don’t care a rat about what you think or want.

The facts are plain and simple. Let me jog your memory

Grails founder Graeme Rocher wrote here http://java.dzone.com/news/if-your-open-source-provider-a :

“The news that Ext-JS has, from one release to the next, changed from a modified LGPL to a GPL based license nearly made me fall off my chair. There have been many poor judged, and ill advised decisions made by software companies over the last few years, but this has got to be up there with the stupidist I’ve seen and I’m not even personally an Ext-JS user.

What they have effectively done is built up a community, taking full advantage of the open source model by accepting user contributions and patches and then turned around and kicked their own community up the backside. It is projects like Ext-JS that give open source a bad name.”

John Resig also wrote here : http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6jhhs/dont_use_extjs/c040qhr

“Actually, it is (Ext is Slimy) – since the explicit “if this is a piece of JavaScript code, don’t virally infect the server-side code” clause of GPLv3 wasn’t included. This means that if you ever use server-side code to write out a JavaScript method (e.g. “ext.showModal” or some such) then you immediately have to take on the GPL there, as well. This isn’t just my interpretation, it’s Jack Slocum’s (creator of ExtJS) as well. This is being done very intentionally to keep the appearance of being ‘open’ while, at the same time, making it impossible to actually ever use in a non-Open-Source capacity.”

And even Dion expressed his opinions here :
http://almaer.com/blog/ext-js-a-reminder-that-you-are-not-alone

There is no conspiracy theory here. It is not a select group of competitors who are out to get you. Prominent personalities from different spectrums of OSS have all made the same conclusion that you resorted to dirty business. I hope you sleep well with the money you’ve made. The Ext empire is not going to last too long.

From:
http://www.reddit.com/comments/6gli8/ext_21_released_license_changed_from_lgpl_to_gpl/

Compared to this, “bait and switch” sounds downright mild, so please don’t tell me I’m misrepresenting what he said, I actually toned it down, if anything.
John’s statements of the past, are, to put it midly, a very plausible reason for him to exclude Ext from slides, and it was valid and informative to refer people to them.
Here now, in this thread, John points to the GPL license as a sufficient reason for Ext to be excluded. But that is not in conflict with, and does not change, what he said in the past, nor does it make it invalid to point to John’s former words, especially as John had not explained himself yet, and I didn’t think he was going to.
This is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. Discussions about technologies and people happen all the time, all over the internet, in which the principals being discussed are unlikely to step in directly, and so people link to their official statements.
You stepped in with a baseless accusation of trolling, clearly false by your own definition, as I did not raise the topic. I do appreciate that you are no longer slinging such terms around, and that you now instead trying to dig into whatever nuance it was you didn’t like. But as a baseline of respect, you should retract your “troll” comment, which just isn’t true.
Side note to John: if your intent was to distance yourself from your more heated comments of the past, then sorry for bringing those up again.

By the way, you should really read what Resig and others have said about Ext, because you have just profoundly misrepresented Resig’s reasons for omitting Ext from slides, panels, etc. This is not about quibbles over SVN access, but instead about the LGPL -> GPL bait and switch.

it just comes off as though *John’s* quibbles of not including Ext on his slides are really over a perceived LGPL – GPL bait and switch. But that’s not what John said. That’s what you just said. Also, John, in an earlier post to you, coryn1 and rextasy doesn’t mention anything about a “bait and switch”. So no where in this discussion thread or the responses to the user who had the question of why Ext wasn’t included in the slides does John say that. Only you say that but in a way where someone could take it that John did. So do you get where I’m coming from and why it sounds like you are speaking for John? Now there’s no question that you have a fantastic Ajax/RIA framework and so does Ext. I just prefer Ext and took issue with what sounded like FUD being spread. Understand? If you didn’t mean it as FUD then say so and let everyone know that the comment is your opinion and not John’s. If it’s John’s opinion then let him say so, ok?

As for “bait and switch” being the consensus, that is ridiculous. 10 (or even 100) out of 50,000 registered users (and over 200,000 daily visitors) is not a consensus. And the most vociferous people speaking out against Ext aren’t the people who use it – it is people like you who are our competitors and who hope to spread FUD to benefit themselves.

Oh and by the way Jack never replied explaining what he means by “conceptually there was no license change” when it did change. Moving from LGPL -> GPL is not a license change?? Which world does he live in? Just goes to show how the company feels about licensing issues.

Re: bait and switch: hundreds of people with no financial connection to any competing product have called Ext’s licensing moves a bait and switch or used equivalent terms. Here’s 400+ pages worth:

http://www.google.com/search?q=extjs+bait+and+switch

The fact that Ext pulled a “bait and switch” is a broadly held, consensus opinion (see above), and it was neither FUD nor even a contentious point for me to mention it.
I am amazed to see you label this outcry – hundreds of people with legitimate grievances – as “FUD”. Nice.
You also make the nonsensical claim that it’s not a bait and switch when the perpetrator says it’s not? Shall we also ask the thief if it’s theft? If you’re going to start insulting people, start by being coherant.

As for my post that you are referencing back in March of 07, Jack Slocum contacted me directly and we discussed my concerns offline and all was/is good. In fact, that conversation lead to myself and Rich Waters starting Ext.nd. This is just another example where people like yourself just don’t have all of the facts and then start spreading FUD like this.