Slashdot Log In
Microsoft and Nokia Adopt OSS JQuery Framework
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Sep 29, 2008 06:36 AM
from the ms-could-become-the-largest-open-source-vendor dept.
from the ms-could-become-the-largest-open-source-vendor dept.
soliptic writes "The jQuery blog today announced that 'Both Microsoft and Nokia are taking the major step of adopting jQuery as part of their official application development platform.' So the open-source javascript framework will be shipped with Visual Studio and ASP.NET MVC. Microsoft's Scott Hanselman notes: 'It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else.'" There's also a story at eWeek about the decision.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Same ol' embrace, extend, extinguish? (Score:2, Informative)
Additionally Microsoft will be developing additional controls, or widgets, to run on top of jQuery that will be easily deployable within your .NET applications. jQuery helpers will also be included in the server-side portion of .NET development (in addition to the existing helpers) providing complementary functions to existing ASP.NET AJAX capabilities.
Just makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Javascript frameworks deal with the major hurdles of modern web design: Abstracting browser differences, and avoiding reinventing the wheel with the kind of AJAXy effects that are increasingly more common these days.
I wonder how this will affect Prototype. It's always had different design goals than jQuery, but will this diminish it's popularity?
Also, will the jQuery API eventually be integrated into the browser instead of being a huge JS blob for every page?
Re:Just makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine not, since it would make upgrading a major pain. As long as the site controls which version of jQuery you have, they can opt in to the latest and greatest version without having to wait for the browser manufacturers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
True, although it would be interesting if future browsers could detect certain versions of jQuery via the <script> tags in webpages, and accelerate those versions. That way, the latest version could always be included if needed, but for older versions browsers could provide a native implementation.
Of course, that doesn't mean its a good idea. If Microsoft managed to fuck up CSS, JavaScript and pretty much everything they have implemented so far, I sure as hell don't think they'd implement jQuery any b
Re:Just makes sense... (Score:5, Informative)
jQuery is entirely contained within its own namespace. Multiple versions of jQuery can coexist on the same page, so upgrades wouldn't be a problem, sites could just include the latest version if the version shipped with browsers wasn't suitable.
Parent
In other news (Score:2, Funny)
jQuery announced that the next version of their popular library will leverage the power and versatility of Microsoft(tm)(r) Silverlight(r) for delivering the next generation of .NET based media experiences and rich interactive applications for the Web.
"Freetards and other goddamn hippies need not apply." said jQuery's new maintainer, an oddly familiar, angry fat man. Going by the name of Stephan Ballmerano; he sports a beard, dark glasses, cape, and top-hat.
"I have done it before, and I'll do it again. I'm
Not eating the dogfood? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was a little bemused by the Microsoft guy's blog... last screenshot before the comments.
He needs to demo something non-trivial, so he switches to Firefox and Firebug.
Tell me about it, Scott!
That's great! (Score:2)
Congratulations to everybody who has worked on jQuery!
I have used jQuery extensively and it is easy to learn and easy to handle. In fact, I had been using JavaScript for quite a while before jQuery, but after I started using jQuery, read some source, wrote a few plugins, etc. (even some patches, including performance related ones), I feel my understanding of the weird and advanced things in JavaScript is also much much better - and it didn't require any hard work or thinking :)
In comparison, before jQuery I
Re:Will they (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah why not? As long as they release all their code under the MIT licence (which they've said they will do), there is no reason not to embrace and extend. The parent project can choose to incorporate Microsoft's code, or not.
From the article, Microsoft have said they will contribute patches upstream rather than forking their own version. But as long as you're sure everybody is releasing their code under the same free licence, 'embrace and extend' is not a problem in the free software world. In many cases it can be beneficial.
Parent
But... (Score:5, Informative)
MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.
Parent
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.
And is that relevant? This issue has been addressed:
Scott Guthrie says: [asp.net]
"We will distribute the jQuery JavaScript library as-is, and will not be forking or changing the source from the main jQuery branch."
The Scott Hanselman says: [hanselman.com]
"It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else."
Parent
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Outside of obfuscation, how exactly do you close source a JavaScript library that your browser can access via HTTP? I suppose Microsoft could incorporate it directly into the browser, but that doesn't seem likely.
Parent
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of obfuscation, how exactly do you close source a JavaScript library that your browser can access via HTTP? I suppose Microsoft could incorporate it directly into the browser, but that doesn't seem likely.
"Close" can mean two things here. Yes, the source will remain visible, since its Javascript. So that's one sense of "open". However, it doesn't need to remain open source in the sense of the license. Microsoft could, in theory, add some features and relicense it under proprietary terms; the MIT license allows that. That is, seeing the source doesn't mean it's open source in the licensing sense.
Happily, Microsoft announced that they won't change the license.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose Microsoft could incorporate it directly into the browser, but that doesn't seem likely.
Microsoft could, in theory, add some features and relicense it under proprietary terms; the MIT license allows that. That is, seeing the source doesn't mean it's open source in the licensing sense.
Say hello to Microsoft DirectHTML!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, this has already happened to a Javascript library: EXTJS. Not quite in the sense you're talking about -- it was GPL'd -- but we still had to port away from it.
We might've been willing to release some of the Javascript source -- after all, GP is right, it's not like we can hide it -- but the author was claiming it applied to the web app serving the Javascript, also.
Although that's patently absurd, it's also untested in court, and it proved that he's exactly the kind of assmunch we don't want to work
Re: (Score:2)
Uh you did look and see that ExtJs has a commercial license and always has had one, which you could use to create a proprietary blend with?
Not saying your decision was rash or unfounded, just wanted to point out to the discussion that Ext and Josh Shlocum considered their options and chose to offer dual licenses as there was not a single license available which met their needs.
That being said, good luck with that closed source thing you've got going on...
Same thing here.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Was evaluating JS frameworks for an open-source project, and ext js was precluded due to license. The project was BSD licensed, and thus neither the commercial nor GPL license was appropriate.
I understand their viewpoint (trying to make a business and community framework), but MIT licensed jQuery is much more amenable to other licenses.
I've always thought software vendors when doing open source would prefer GPL on stuff they put out (force commercial adopters to use a more commercial license), and that so
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it might even be open source. You get the source, and you can change it.
That is why "open source" is an unfortunate term.
It would not be free software, because the user would be some freedoms short.
Yeah, I was... (Score:2)
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Considering some of the smaller scale, and a few of the larger, OSS projects have code so badly written, so badly commented that obfuscated javascript looks easy to read by comparison, how do you close a JavaScript project?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Javascript is copyright just like anything else. Just because you can see the code doesn't mean you're free to use it for your own stuff. For example, you can not legally use non-free Javascript off of any random website.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The difference being, sparky, is that the source is not closed, you can read it. It maybe closed in terms of copyright, but it's still open in terms of source access. As opposed to closed, compiled binaries where the source is not available.
The discussion was about source code.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
What he's saying is that although Microsoft will be distributing the JQuery framework as-is, they may decide to use it in a closed-source product, with custom changes that don't get sent upstream. I'm not saying that Microsoft will do that, because I'm not in a position to speak for them, but it would definitely not be outside of their usual MO. Furthermore, parents point is that there is nothing in the MIT license that prevents them from doing this. Whether you agree with the philosophy of the MIT license or not is out of scope and off-topic.
Parent
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
In other words: It's time to start a flame war! Right here! Right now!
Parent
This is just for cred (Score:3, Insightful)
But I believe this is something different. Even though this probably gives them some code they don't have to write, this is just to use a popular and growing JavaScript library to give ASP.NET MVC some much needed street cred, especially among open source leaning developers.
Though jQuery is better as a general JavaScript library than anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Due to the client-side script nature of JavaScript, I am struggling to be able to imagine a situation where it makes sense to release jQuery or any other JavaScript web library as closed source.
Just because you can access the source doesn't mean you have license to do anything with it. There own extensions, especially if contained in separate source files, do not need to be covered by the same license.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Do you want a cookie for pointing that out, or do you actually have a point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, because we all know how trustworthy microsoft is when it comes to keeping their promises...
heck, why bother with OSS licenses at all? just trust companies during the "embrace" stage, and i'm sure nothing else will come of it!
Re: (Score:2)
Submitting a patch and that patch being useful to anyone using a non-windows platform are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
So, should they distribute under a more restricted license in order to show everyone how open they are?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, that's right, it's Microsoft. That automatically makes it evil...
Give me a break.
Re:Will they (Score:5, Funny)
Well.... a big part of its popularity is that it's a lightweight library, so maybe better if they don't contribute to it... :-)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If......
from TFA: .NET applications. jQuery helpers will also be included in the server-side portion of .NET development
Additionally Microsoft will be developing additional controls, or widgets, to run on top of jQuery that will be easily deployable within your
so much for "if we want changes, we'll submit a patch like everyone else"
Re:Will they (Score:4, Informative)
jQuery is the core library, with widgets usually being distributed as independent packages, so it makes complete sense for them to do it this way.
jQuery's aim isn't to be the source for calendar and date-picker widgets, it's to provide a solid base to build those things on.
Parent
Re:Will they (Score:4, Informative)
jQuery is designed specifically to be extended, by the programming of plugins. Have a look at their plugin repository.
I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft would require anything adding to the jQuery core that couldn't be better implemented with a plugin.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Where there's a will there's a way... where there's Microsoft you can bet your arse they'll try to proprietry it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that kind of applies to all scripting languages. Besides, how many others are embedded in the browser?
Re:pity JS is crap to start with (Score:4, Insightful)
it's slow, buggy, and prone to being abused. why are we still using it?
Slow? Not with the next generation of JIT JavaScript compilers coming up in Firefox 3.1, Google Chrome, and WebKit. And I'm sure IE will get there someday. Buggy? Not sure what you even mean by that... particular implementations may be buggy, but a programming language cannot itself be buggy. Prone to being abused? Which language isn't?
Parent
Re:pity JS is crap to start with (Score:4, Interesting)
So those are only a few of the issues. It feels like it's trying to be several different languages all at once. Coupled with the issues above (particularly the inconsistent use of 'this' and the implicit semi-colons), well frankly, if any design could be considered buggy, I'd say that it's Javascript's.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every gripe with Javascript stems from the first and last items on your list. 99% of the javascript I come across is written as if it is C, which causes all sorts of confusion with scope and efficiency.
Second and third, true enough, but Javascript is not alone.
Other languages with tons of theoretical cred share the newline/semicolon problems (Haskell, for example).
If more programmers understood functional idioms, Javascript wouldn't have such a bad reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every gripe with Javascript stems from the first and last items on your list. 99% of the javascript I come across is written as if it is C, which causes all sorts of confusion with scope and efficiency.
Yes, and I think it's a bad design to model the statements of a language against a different language, but completely change the semantics. An extreme example would be using the '+' symbol for subtraction. But I don't think that the typeof issues I mentioned are fundamental to functional programming languages. And I don't think that reusing bad design (===) excuses the language just because "Javascript is not alone."
Other languages with tons of theoretical cred share the newline/semicolon problems (Haskell, for example).
I haven't seen many other languages do this, but I still think it's a bad design. I'm su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an extreme case, but it illustrates the point. Javascript takes common programming paradigms, structure, and syntax, and turns them on their heads. It would be nice if the designers had chosen to make Javascript look a little less C-like, but I suppose that it might not hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that it depends upon your definition of "buggy." You can design a language where the Integer object has a destructor named "toString" if you want to. And if someone did that, I would consider the design to be broken.
No, the definition of "buggy" is not open to interpretation. If your language defines a destructor named toString, then that is a feature of the language, not a bug. Any implementation which does not correctly implement it is therefore buggy, but the language itself is not.
Now, anyone is certainly free to argue whether a destructor named toString, or any particular feature of JavaScript, is a good idea, but saying that the language itself is "buggy" or "broken" is, by definitio
Re: (Score:2)
Prone to being abused? Which language isn't?
Javascript?
Re: (Score:2)
My memory could be playing a trick on me, but I think jQuery was the framework that used x-json. Just google x-json.
Re:Will they fix it? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest problem with Prototype is that it doesn't play nice (last time I checked) with other libraries and you have to jump through hoops to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not uncommon even if the the site isn't slashdotted. It's getting a lot better, though :)