Is it possible to use CKEditor 4 without jQuery? I've noticed it seems to "integrate" with jQuery through an adapter, but I don't want to use jQuery on my site, so I'd prefer to use CKEditor without the adapter. I don't see anything in the CKEditor documentation, GitHub issues, builder config files, or Stack Overflow questions about using CKEditor without jQuery, so I'm guessing it's probably not possible? I'm mostly just surprised that the question has never been asked, so here I am asking it. If it turns out that it is indeed possible to use CKEditor without jQuery I would be thrilled.
EDIT: I don't see jQuery in the dependencies of the npm package, so it shouldn't be required, but I've found no instructions on how to build it without the jQuery adapter.
Of course, possible use CKEditor without jQuery.
jQuery adapter used only for treat CKEditor as jQuery object via $.
All basic CKEditor plugins(components) not used jQuery too.
However, a few extented CKEditor plugin as "Accessibility Checker" demand of jQuery.
OK, after some investigation it looks like it can work without the adapter, and the adapter is not included in the build. The issue appears to be with certain plugins requiring jQuery (the autosave plugin is the one I was having issues with).
Related
I need to add video functionality to CKeditor. Thus, enabled Xuggler plugin. However, it has some limitations. Thus, searched about other plugins which can be integrated with CKeditor and supports video content.
Following are the findings for above: -
I found online ckeditor builder which gives video functionality (CKEditor 4). Please help in integrating the same with Liferay 7.
https://ckeditor.com/cke4/builder.
I got another plugin html5video; https://ckeditor.com/cke4/addon/html5video
Please help in integrating the plugin with CKEditor available with Liferay 7.
Thus, requesting you to help in accomplishing either of the above solution in order to achieve video functionality in Liferay 7 webcontent.
Have a look at the lfr-dxp-src/modules/apps/foundation/frontend-editor/frontend-editor-ckeditor-web module. It contains all the CKeditor related code.
Froma quick look over it it seems that you should focus on 2 things:
Get the plugin code.
You would need a fragment bundle for that that will inject the necessary JS into the frontend-editor-ckeditor-web.
Look here for insperation: lfr-dxp-src/modules/apps/foundation/frontend-editor/frontend-editor-ckeditor-web/src/main/resources/META-INF/resources/_diffs/plugins/media
Probably you will need to change the configuration of the CKEditor
You need to create an edit options contributor. Make sure that you put this in a separate module form the fragment as the fragment.
Look here for inspiration: com.liferay.frontend.editor.ckeditor.web.editor.configuration.CKEditorConfigContributor
How can I disable Mootools in Joomla 3.2 without hacking core files? I have already tested this link, but it does not work for me.
Simple way is edit your templates not to include it but some things still require it.
http://pbwebdev.com/blog/removing-mootools-core-js-caption-js-joomla
Newer versions of 3.2.3 remove the tooltip js that was built in mootools but earlier ones will give you a console error if you have forms using it for the tip on the input label.
Also Kunena Forum uses mootools for the profiles and post edit tools, so I tend to write code that just includes it there.
Outside that there are plugins in the JED
http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions/core-enhancements/performance/mootools/22236
I found this page on docs.joomla.org helpful. I was using JHtml::_('behavior.framework') which loads mootools.
Im creating a custom template for joomla 2.5 and I want to know if is it safe to disable mootools for my template?
If its safe, how can I disable mootools?
You can find several extensions that disable MooTools in the Core Enhancements/Performance section of the Joomla! Extension Directory (JED)
As mentioned already it is safe to do it as MooTools is only really required for the Joomla! 2.5.x backend i.e. /administrator.
Having said that you should be aware that some aspects of Joomla! 2.5 front-end do require MooTools to be loaded and many extensions "expect" it to be there (although they are not particularly good ones).
Generally Mootools is loaded by a PHP call of the form JHTML::_('behavior.mootools'); or JHTML::_('behavior.framework')
Core elements that load MooTools in the front-end include:
Contacts (com_contact)
Content (com_content in the blog, category views)
Advanced Search (com_finder)
Newsfeeds (com_newsfeeds)
Weblinks (com_weblinks)
Popular third party components that use it in the front-end include:
1. RokGallery — infact a lot of their stuff prior to RokSprocket
2. Akeeba Subscriptions
3. Akeeba Release System
4. and many others...
The thing to remember is MooTools has been in the 'core' for a long time and developers expect it to be there, rightly or not, so, you will have to check any extensions and see if any core components are impacted adversely when you do remove it.
To add to cppl answer:
As far as I know, every library in Joomla is/should loaded only when it's required.
If MooTools loaded on your site, some extension/ core functionality is using it so if you just remove it, some things may break.
What you can do:
Inspect the code that's using MooTools
If it's inline code, probably you may overwrite it using template overwrites to use jQuery
If there's a library (like validate.js) you can provide alternative libraries (utilizing jQuery), put these in /templates/[your_template/js/system/ folder.
Removing MooTools and loading jQuery would make perfect sense than.
Judging by the number of extensions that do this, I'd say it's not only safe, but often desirable.
http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions/core-enhancements/performance/mootools
I am currently using the JBoss RichFaces JSF component library for the project I am working on. It works quite well in general, especially the AJAX support provided by ajax4jsf (A4J), but I find the usually very inflexible table-markup used for almost every component and all this "skin" stuff of RichFaces quite annoying. It would be nice if there were some components which just provided the functionality and only minimal markup/style. Originally I had planned to use ICEfaces, but that didn't work too well either and also brings a lot of predefined styles with it, so for now RichFaces seems to be the best option.
Now I thought it would be nice to develop a clean tag library which provides some useful components found in RichFaces, ICEfaces or Tomahawk (not all of course!), which don't use any predefined style and generate markup which can be styled easily with CSS.
I wanted to use the ajax4jsf library for AJAX support, because I think it works quite nicely, and integrates seamlessly into standard JSF with facelets. But it seems that since it has moved over to JBoss, it isn't available as a standalone library anymore. You can only download the whole RichFaces package, which I don't want.
Is the ajax4jsf (A4J) project dead? If it is, what alternatives are there?
You can find many alternatives here:
JSF AJAX Component Library Feature Matrix
If you read the ajax4jsf forum you'll see that it's been merged with Richfaces.
You don't have to use the Richfaces components on your page, so do you have an issue with having the JARs in your project?
I agree that many JSF components (not just Richfaces) are based on tables (eg. h:selectManyCheckbox). Don't forget that it's easy to write a new renderer for many of these. I've done this for the h:selectManyCheckbox so that the checkboxes are rendered inside divs instead of a table. I would think that you should be able to do the same for Richfaces components...but if that's the case, then why use them?
You may find it easier/nicer using jQuery UI elements and tie them back to your Beans with a4j:jsFunction (or similar).
Just a comment. I started using icefaces. I'm a web designer also and im very particular on look and feel of the icefaces components in relation to my web application. I was highly frustrated at the time it took me to override the look and feel of icefaces components using css. The components had a lot of nested table markup that annoyed me.
When i moved to richfaces. I discovered it was alot easier to override the look n feel because richfaces have an integrated system of overriding the look n feel in css. The css given to the components had similar and sensible class names that made it easier to predict and override.
If you are feeling adventurous, take a look at JSF 2. It features a shift in view technologies from JSP to Facelets and built in AJAX support. David Geary has been running a series of JSF 2 fu articles on developerWorks (though you'll have to wait for part 3 for the AJAX stuff). Ed Burns and Jim Driscoll have been demoing various features during the development of the new API, so you might want to check out their blogs too.
I wrote a firefox plugin using C++ and used the <EMBED> to load it to html.
In javascript I got the embedded plugin by using document.getElementByID,
but when I tried to call a plugin function, the function was undefined. Moreover,
plugins constructors did not run while loading the page.
The same html file and plugin seems to work on some computers, while it doesnt work on others.
Does anyone have an idea what might by wrong?
How can I debug such an issue?
Can you reproduce it on your computer at first? If not, then try to figure out what systems, browsers, architecture, versions, they are using.
I recall, there are many GECKOSDK's, and each one has a specific version it works for. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/gecko_sdk For example, different SDK's for Firefox 1.5-2.0, FireFox 3.0, Firefox 3.5, and Firefox 3.5
For different browers, make sure you are exposing the right DLL Exports, browsers can vary: http://git.webvm.net/?p=npsimple is a good starting point. You can use firebreath.googlecode.com too as an alternative.
My suggestion would be to use an object tag instead of <embed>. In my experience, doesn't seem to work as reliably.
If I had more information on how your plugin is structured (are you using XPCOM or npruntime?), I might be able to help more.