From a development standpoint, it reminds me of Silverlight and WPF. I'm very happy to see this. MVVM is a simple but powerful pattern.
If you used Caliburn, it should. The same guy is behind both.
Introducing Aurelia
81–87 of 87 posts
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#82No pun intended against Aurelia, but this reminds me... https://twitter.com/iamdevloper/status/540481335362875392 "I think I've had milk last longer than some JavaScript frameworks."
Rob has been around a while, but was most recently working on Angular 2.0. However, he's had technical differences with the team and has returned to a framework that matches his approach better.
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#83Despite the claim of supporting "WebComponents" I can't see any evidence in the source that it actually does. There are no calls to document.registerElement() in the framework or templating repositories, and it looks like any element registration is happening against a proprietary registry, so that Aurelia components won't be available in standard web pages outside of the Aurelia framework, which would be the exact s…
And Polymer.
Unlike the frameworks I listed, Polymer creates true W3C custom elements, which are instantiated by the browser, not the framework. Polymer custom elements are interoperable with raw html, Mozilla X-tags, IBM Delite, Bosonic, etc.
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#84This looks a bit like Angular 1.3 and 2.0 to me - DI, binding and repeats look like ng-model and ng-repeat.. I'm curious to see more when the full docs are out though. No mention of isomorphism or a virtual DOM, seems to be a bit behind the zeitgeist.
Yeah. I just got done doing a very large SPA using Knockout, and I'm now starting a little side project with React/Flux. Pain points I found with the Knockout based app: Performance, stupidly messy data flows, hard to test, lack of isomorphism. My choice of React/Flux for my next project was based on that: React makes a big deal about performance (virtual DOM), sensible data flow (flux architecture, one-way data flow…
I was quite surprised at how little support in browsers there was for es6 and 7. Essentially, every current and near future browser was developed against es5.
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#85This is a small thing to point out but I wish they picked a name that were easier to type out. aurelia-* is so much more verbose than ng-
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#86Despite the claim of supporting "WebComponents" I can't see any evidence in the source that it actually does. There are no calls to document.registerElement() in the framework or templating repositories, and it looks like any element registration is happening against a proprietary registry, so that Aurelia components won't be available in standard web pages outside of the Aurelia framework, which would be the exact s…
Yes. We support web components. That doesn't mean we are built with Web Components at the core. The WC specs have a number of design flaws, in my opinion, and they don't work as efficiently as possible with databinding solutions, etc. I can expound more on this in a blog post. But our binding system works fine with Web Components. So, you can import a Web Component and use it inside a view with databinding and even attach additional behaviors to it without any problems.
Web Components are not yet a standard. They are primarily being pushed by Google without taking much feedback from other vendors. I spent almost a year working with building frameworks around them...and decided there was no real advantage to using document.registerElement for an Application Framework.
Again, if you want to build Web Components or use Polymer...that is fine. You can use that with Aurelia. But Aurelia's custom elements aren't built that way.
As a side note, Aurelia will be able to "export" its custom elements to Web Components. So, before we hit v1 you will be able to do that and then take an Aurelia Web Component into a non-Aurelia app and use it, the same way you would use a Polymer element. We haven't done that yet because we are focused on the application experience first and foremost.
Re: Introducing Aurelia
#87Despite the claim of supporting "WebComponents" I can't see any evidence in the source that it actually does. There are no calls to document.registerElement() in the framework or templating repositories, and it looks like any element registration is happening against a proprietary registry, so that Aurelia components won't be available in standard web pages outside of the Aurelia framework, which would be the exact s…
I should also state that we do use HTML Imports, for view loading, which is part of Web Components and we also use HTML Template Element, which is part of Web Components...and you can optionally use Shadow DOM...which is part of Web Components. What we don't do is use document.registerElement as part of our own custom element implementation because we would give up too much control over critical aspects of binding and resource loading.
So, we use 3/4 of the spec. One of the APIs we don't use...but we will allow you to export your Aurelia elements to a document.register form for v1.