Response title
This is preview!
Move this topic
Hi,
what do you think about using one of the mentioned MVC frameworks together with jQuery Mobile?
Some tried to integrate Backbone.js and there is a "proof-of-concept" with ember.
Seems to me like most guys use jQuery Mobile w/out those libraries / frameworks.
What do you think about it?
Is there any experience (good/bad) you can tell us about?
--
hgoebl
1
Replies(6)
Hi. I have built a small example application with jqm and angular. A few people built an adapter - addon
(https://github.com/tigbro/jquery-mobile-angular-adapter)
to ease the combination of both technologies. there is also a book around. http://www.amazon.de/Mobile-Web-Apps-mit-JavaScript-professionelle/dp/3868020853 Dont know if its already translated to english. Angular and jQM together are working quite well.
My personal experience is that if you use an mvc framework like angular then there wont much left of jquery mobile. JQM is the attraction of simplicity. Simple things keep Simple. If you think about an mvc it is obvious that you work in the field of rich user interfaces and maybe for some reason you cannot do it native. JQM is limited when its going to built a natural feeling rich UI. The way JQM works withs Forms or handles the Ajax-Navigation for example is all not useable out of the box in a rich UI. When your intention is to substitute these features by using an mvc then what is left of jqm then? The widgets, transitions...! Now the sole question is if its worth to include jqm just to have some iOS like Controls; or is it better to work out a simple mobile css.
(https://github.com/tigbro/jquery-mobile-angular-adapter)
to ease the combination of both technologies. there is also a book around. http://www.amazon.de/Mobile-Web-Apps-mit-JavaScript-professionelle/dp/3868020853 Dont know if its already translated to english. Angular and jQM together are working quite well.
My personal experience is that if you use an mvc framework like angular then there wont much left of jquery mobile. JQM is the attraction of simplicity. Simple things keep Simple. If you think about an mvc it is obvious that you work in the field of rich user interfaces and maybe for some reason you cannot do it native. JQM is limited when its going to built a natural feeling rich UI. The way JQM works withs Forms or handles the Ajax-Navigation for example is all not useable out of the box in a rich UI. When your intention is to substitute these features by using an mvc then what is left of jqm then? The widgets, transitions...! Now the sole question is if its worth to include jqm just to have some iOS like Controls; or is it better to work out a simple mobile css.
Leave a comment on stefan.gebhardt's reply
I am using jQm 1.2 on top of Ember (latest) with ember-data for the persistance layer (also latest with tweaks).
The app is intended to replace a fully functioning point-of-sale system written in flex.
Unlike what @stefan.gebhardt says, I find this combination to be very flexible when you define roles for each component. Because jQm targets the UI heavily, I can give the role of "skins"/styling/appearance solely to jQm and then the heavy lifting is done by ember and ember-data.
Each widget that I use I created an Ember View that I use in my app, for a popup, I have App.PopupView which takes care of setting up and tearing down.
To get you started here is what works for both backbone and ember to remove navigation conflicts:
- // taken from http://coenraets.org/blog/2012/03/using-backbone-js-with-jquery-mobile/
- $(document).bind("mobileinit", function () {
- $.mobile.ajaxEnabled = false;
- $.mobile.linkBindingEnabled = false;
- $.mobile.hashListeningEnabled = false;
- $.mobile.pushStateEnabled = false;
- // Remove page from DOM when it's being replaced (if you use pages)
- $('div[data-role="page"]').live('pagehide', function (event, ui) {
- $(event.currentTarget).remove();
- });
- });
Leave a comment on mspisars's reply
Hi mspisars
Thats my point. With the code snippet above you're disabling the hole jqm navigation inftrastructure because it not fits with a RIA architecture. So you are using then jqm as a "widget only"-framework. This is pretty much that what i wanted to say with my post above. What is left of jqm after that is html enhancing and css skining and thats, in my eyes not that much. But of course its working.
Thats my point. With the code snippet above you're disabling the hole jqm navigation inftrastructure because it not fits with a RIA architecture. So you are using then jqm as a "widget only"-framework. This is pretty much that what i wanted to say with my post above. What is left of jqm after that is html enhancing and css skining and thats, in my eyes not that much. But of course its working.
jQm has a "make a build" option where you can not include components you do not plan to use, which will reduce the size of your jQm include.
But to say that styling/css/skinning is a small part of a project is just misleading.
If your project requires cross browser support, you will be spending hours tweaking CSS just to make things work across multiple platforms.
jQm removes the need to do that for the most part, letting you focus on the actual coding, not styling of your app.
Plus for disabling the nav on jQm, Ember's router gives you way more functionality by letting it take care of the navigation/url - i.e. dynamic url's based on data, etc.
I guess it all depends on the size of your application, and what the future growth for it looks like.
Leave a comment on stefan.gebhardt's reply
Many thnx for your thoughts.
I've looked into the code of bridges between jqm and AngularJS, Ember and Backbone.js.
I seems to me like it is not very easy to understand where the responsibility between the frameworks and jqm begins and ends. I think this could be a nightmare to debug when problems arise.
My first intention was to share some logic of a desktop browser webapp with a mobile app (same backend, same model, different templates).
I didn't dive too deep into all MVC frameworks/libraries but at the moment I think that Backbone.js is the one which is least invasive in combination w/ jqm. I'd prefer ember or AngularJS for the desktop browser app, but here I'll most likely choose Backbone.js.
Still I'm very interested in your opinions or experiences - the coding has not yet started.
Leave a comment on hgoebl's reply
If you are making a native app, consider the alternative of using the Rhodes framework. It runs a server in the device in which you can write models and controllers in Ruby. It has a simple ORM implemented over SQLite (HSQLDB on Blackberry) .
It is not meant to be a clone of Rails, but it is very similar, so you can do a lot of re-purposing if you happen to be using Rails as a web backend.
It uses a webview for presentation, and jQuery Mobile is the standard javascript framework.
It is not meant to be a clone of Rails, but it is very similar, so you can do a lot of re-purposing if you happen to be using Rails as a web backend.
It uses a webview for presentation, and jQuery Mobile is the standard javascript framework.
Leave a comment on watusiware's reply
Change topic type
Link this topic
Provide the permalink of a topic that is related to this topic
Reply to hgoebl's discussion
Statistics
- 6 Replies
- 1382 Views
- 0 Followers
