[09:01:17] <gnarf> Hey
[09:01:31] <rworth> hey
[09:02:14] <ajpiano> hey guys
[09:02:39] <jzaefferer> its that time again!
[09:02:40] <ajpiano> unforch i am like, about to run out for an errand.  will read back ;)
[09:03:00] <ajpiano> ttyiab!
[09:03:25] * gnarf still dealing with house shit but I got meeting hours blocked out
[09:05:04] <jzaefferer> is danheberden around?
[09:05:32] <danheberden> i am completetly swamped with work
[09:05:39] <danheberden> or completely even
[09:06:36] <jzaefferer> k
[09:06:50] <jzaefferer> rworth, you don't have an update for docs either?
[09:06:56] <rworth> no
[09:07:43] <jzaefferer> scott_gonzalez, what's the status on the disconnected widgets issue?
[09:07:47] <jzaefferer> is that still relevant?
[09:07:50] <scott_gonzalez> no
[09:07:57] <scott_gonzalez> we decided it didn't matter
[09:08:03] <scott_gonzalez> the ticket was invalid
[09:08:07] <jzaefferer> deleted from the agenda
[09:08:14] <rworth> baleted
[09:08:15] <jzaefferer> there was no outcome on the last sheet
[09:08:27] <jzaefferer> rworth: sure, whatever that means
[09:09:10] <jzaefferer> pretty sure we had some kind of descision on the 1.9 action, didn't put anything down though
[09:10:04] <jzaefferer> is kborchers around? should we merge https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/pull/419/files ?
[09:10:05] <socialhapy> ★ Pull request on jquery-ui by inukshuk (3w, 6d ago): Positions: added conditional suppression of position rounding
[09:10:08] <scott_gonzalez> this is all on the 2011-08-10 sheet
[09:10:16] <scott_gonzalez> -17 looks like an old copy
[09:10:17] <kborchers> i am
[09:10:56] <jzaefferer> okay, deleted the −17 one
[09:11:04] <kborchers> i think that will fix that last ie issues with position unit tests they do some rounding
[09:12:07] <jzaefferer> could you test the PR?
[09:12:33] <kborchers> i thought i had but i will do it again and let you know if that does fix it
[09:12:42] <jzaefferer> okay, thanks
[09:12:52] <jzaefferer> this was also in the agenda, not sure what its about: https://github.com/kborchers/jquery-ui/commit/48d1606fa1477c52f13c849715322a9edcfa04e9
[09:12:53] <socialhapy> ★ Commit on jquery-ui by kborchers (1m, 2d ago): Position: Calculated better collision detection in flip and fit and created visual tests for each
[09:12:58] <jzaefferer> is it still valid?
[09:14:05] <kborchers> don't think so as this commit was merged ... must have been an old one from a different branch https://github.com/kborchers/jquery-ui/commit/80bbebd4893ca0d75d556553a74550d01f52892f
[09:14:05] <socialhapy> ★ Commit on jquery-ui by kborchers (2w, 4d ago): Position: Added better collision detection for flip and fit, added visual tests for each and updated the unit tests to take the changes into account. In the process, I removed the rounding that was being done to the position since older jQuery couldn't handle the fractions. There was another pull for this same issue and I have merged the unit tests from that pull into thi
[09:14:36] <jzaefferer> okay, thanks
[09:14:51] <jzaefferer> seemed like it was already addressed
[09:15:49] <jzaefferer> we already finished the navigation menu demo, too
[09:15:52] <jzaefferer> didn't we?
[09:16:04] <jzaefferer> silly outdated spreadsheet
[09:16:20] <kborchers> http://view.jqueryui.com/master/demos/menu/navigationmenu.html
[09:16:36] <jzaefferer> right...
[09:17:34] <jzaefferer> about selectmenu
[09:17:35] <jzaefferer> Resolved open issues, Felix to start on implementation on selectmenu branch
[09:17:35] <jzaefferer> Need to ping Colin/OCAD to see what they want to contribute
[09:18:14] <jzaefferer> I also need to ping Hans to see where he's with the datepicker PR
[09:18:40] <jzaefferer> as for Download Builder, we can now safely give up on felixge delivering anything
[09:18:47] <jzaefferer> can't even get him to commit whatever he started
[09:19:06] <kborchers> back to menu real quick ... need input/thoughts on these https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/pull/440 and https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/pull/442 when someone has a chance
[09:19:07] <socialhapy> ★ Pull request on jquery-ui by kborchers (1w, 5d ago): Menu: Added autoCollapse as the default
[09:19:08] <jzaefferer> any ideas how to proceed with that?
[09:19:12] <jzaefferer> okay
[09:19:43] <rworth> Perhaps a blog post and a call for contributions?
[09:20:26] <scott_gonzalez> we should've suggested it for NKO
[09:20:47] <jzaefferer> or Google SOC
[09:21:07] <jzaefferer> at this rate, we can submit it for that next year :p
[09:22:05] <jzaefferer> maybe post to nodejs mailing list?
[09:24:34] <scott_gonzalez> that's a good idea
[09:25:02] * gnarf nods
[09:25:11] <jzaefferer> someone wanna do that?
[09:25:27] <scott_gonzalez> sure
[09:25:59] <jzaefferer> cool
[09:26:14] <jzaefferer> also just pinged Felix once more, asking for the code he actually wrote
[09:28:12] <jzaefferer> well, anything else?
[09:31:39] <gnarf> cya in 30
[09:31:42] <jzaefferer> guess not
[09:31:44] <jzaefferer> yep
[10:02:08] <rworth> hey
[10:02:50] <brado23> hey :)
[10:03:40] <rworth> ok, let's get started
[10:04:31] <rworth> anything to discuss on editing?
[10:04:36] <gnarf> agenda seems kinda empty ... nvm that looks to be getting fixed :)
[10:05:24] <jzaefferer> sorry, should have done that earlier
[10:05:47] <rworth> re: the refresh method, it ocurred to me, what if you want to use the .sort method on an observable array
[10:05:51] <rworth> doesn't seem possible
[10:06:26] <brado23> Nope.  But is this a real scenario?
[10:06:27] <gnarf> hrm
[10:06:57] <jzaefferer> I think much more interesting then these issues is actual remote editing
[10:07:02] <brado23> dataSource is a way of sorting for view consumption.
[10:07:11] <jzaefferer> all our work around $.observable so far is using local arrays
[10:07:45] <jzaefferer> even ignoring that, we need more prototypes/testcases for the issues under discussion, otherwise we aren't really getting anyway
[10:07:51] <brado23> I put together a prototype where you can hook $.obs to detect local array/object changes and push them to a server.
[10:07:57] <jzaefferer> which also means that I actually need to dig into Brad's demos
[10:08:24] <borismoore> dataSource (I always wanted to call it dataView) maps input aray to output array. input might  be remote, but not necessarily
[10:08:28] <jzaefferer> (same for anyone else who wants to participate in that discussion, right?)
[10:08:51] <rworth> yeah, speaking of that discussion, we need to get refresh and bracketing on the wiki
[10:08:51] <jzaefferer> borismoore: right, and we can still rename it
[10:08:56] <rworth> it's on private email atm
[10:09:03] <jzaefferer> rworth: right
[10:09:17] <brado23> yes.  I can do that, if that's ok.
[10:09:21] <rworth> brado23: thanks
[10:10:04] <jzaefferer> so, $.ui.dataview?
[10:10:08] <jzaefferer> instead of $.ui.datasource?
[10:10:17] <rworth> +1
[10:10:21] <borismoore> +1
[10:10:46] <jzaefferer> (and not dataView...)
[10:11:06] <borismoore> whatever the casing convention is
[10:11:21] <jzaefferer> I consider that one word
[10:11:28] <jzaefferer> even if we're making it up (ala prepend)
[10:12:01] <borismoore> I'm kinda agnostic on that
[10:12:02] <gnarf> dataview is a  "displayed" portion of a larger "observable" ?
[10:12:13] <brado23> Sure.  My group here has grown a fondness for datasource.  I'll see if there's any basis for pushback on dataview :)
[10:12:30] <jzaefferer> gnarf: they're independent, but can interact
[10:12:40] <borismoore> datasource always makes people think it is getting fresh data
[10:13:20] <jzaefferer> brado23: k, let me know, not going to start any refactoring until then
[10:13:46] <brado23> ok, will do.  I'm pretty sure dataview works.  Just want a team ACK here.
[10:13:59] <borismoore> If you want to use the output array as a source for a control, or whatever, that's up to you. But it IS a view, not source, just like an array is an array whether you treat it as a source array or not, for something
[10:14:28] <brado23> :/
[10:14:37] <jzaefferer> borismoore: makes sense, we should probably put that on the wiki
[10:14:45] <borismoore> you can use a dv as source for something, like for a Grid
[10:15:05] <borismoore> Sorry, didn't mean to repeat
[10:16:01] <borismoore> OK I can add it to the wiki
[10:17:04] <brado23> borismoore, I see your take now.  Makes sense.
[10:17:21] <borismoore> cool :)
[10:18:01] <jzaefferer> http://wiki.jqueryui.com/w/page-revisions/compare/37927153/Grid-SPF?rev2=1314811069&rev1=1313764069
[10:18:25] <jzaefferer> I already had started editing before I saw your message borismoore
[10:18:47] <borismoore> OK, can update there
[10:19:00] <jzaefferer> not good enough?
[10:19:19] <jzaefferer> nevermind, just edit ahead :-)
[10:19:25] <jzaefferer> anything else on editing?
[10:19:51] <borismoore> Yup, I
[10:20:00] <borismoore> 'll take a look
[10:20:30] <borismoore> I had some versions of Grid-SPF using jsviews, that would be good to include in comparisons,
[10:21:22] <jzaefferer> what comparisons?
[10:21:42] <brado23> Do you mean illustrate use of our proposed datasource/dataview, or an alternative?
[10:22:20] <borismoore> Scrub that, it's maybe a bit off context
[10:22:45] <brado23> borismoore - happy to sync offline and hear your thoughts here
[10:23:14] <borismoore> But just as Joern has on the table to review your prototypes, there is also some review not yet completed suggesting how to integrate with templating and data linking.
[10:23:31] <borismoore> brado23: sure
[10:24:23] <borismoore> not on the datasource/dataview question
[10:24:53] <borismoore> I have an update on my situation, if you want status on that
[10:25:00] <rworth> go ahead
[10:25:20] <borismoore> I am working on a new team at MS - part of Azure -
[10:26:05] <borismoore> They have decided to use JsViews, so they have quite a few requirements fairly urgently.
[10:26:10] <borismoore> JsRender too
[10:26:31] <borismoore> I hope that their requirements and jQuery UI requirements will aline
[10:26:39] <borismoore> looks encouraging so far
[10:27:13] <borismoore> I want to concentrate on logicless as soon as I can
[10:27:20] <jzaefferer> that's the team also interesting in the logicless template engine, right?
[10:27:26] <borismoore> to get that done, and review how it works
[10:27:26] <jzaefferer> logicless aka no JS expressions
[10:27:34] <borismoore> Yes to both q's
[10:27:37] <jzaefferer> *interested
[10:28:00] <borismoore> But the last couple of weeks I have had not time, because of the reorg
[10:28:08] <borismoore> So I'll keep you posted
[10:28:17] <jzaefferer> I'm also on a project were we'd be interested trying that engine
[10:28:26] <borismoore> cool
[10:28:29] <jzaefferer> currently using jquery-tmpl, but without any JS expressions anyway
[10:28:52] <jzaefferer> is the version on your jsrender repo up-to-date?
[10:29:06] <borismoore> OK, makes sense. But after logicless JsRender I need to work more on JsViews, usiing the logicless approach too
[10:29:19] <borismoore> So no expressions in declarative data binding
[10:29:33] <borismoore> All that needs to work well together, with consistent syntax
[10:29:46] <borismoore> It's not jjust the template tags/helpers
[10:30:28] <borismoore> So at some point we need to see if that integrated target (templates plus declarative data link) aka JsViews - is good for jQuery UI too...
[10:30:58] <borismoore> jszaefferer: not quite up-to-date, but nearlyt
[10:31:13] <borismoore> I'll commit soon I hope
[10:31:46] <borismoore> that's it from me
[10:31:54] <jzaefferer> borismoore: data binding is a pretty big topic we haven't really explored yet (well, I didn't). Adobe has some input on that as well (we may finally get access soon).
[10:32:09] <borismoore> ok
[10:32:14] <jzaefferer> its seems MS is invested enough in jsviews that it doesn't depend on our adoption, right?
[10:32:21] <borismoore> correct
[10:32:33] <jzaefferer> not that we don't want it, but its better this way
[10:32:39] <borismoore> But it would be great to avoid multiple flavors
[10:32:43] <jzaefferer> right
[10:32:49] <borismoore> If we do decide to use it for Grid etc
[10:33:10] <jzaefferer> it seems like a lot of JS frameworks these days focus a lot on data binding, e.g. knockout.js
[10:33:43] <borismoore> Yup, but there the observability is baked into the VM wapper
[10:33:45] <borismoore> wrapper
[10:34:01] <jzaefferer> yeah, the approaches differ quite a bit
[10:34:17] <borismoore> We want to avoid different version of observable between JsViews and jQuery UI
[10:34:19] <jzaefferer> UI is very much about small/low-level decoupled components...
[10:34:45] <jzaefferer> well, our implementation of $.observable derivates only a little from yours, doesn't it?
[10:34:51] <brado23> Yes, I feel the goal is to share a single jQuery observability pattern.
[10:34:52] <jzaefferer> or are there concerns we missed?
[10:35:00] <borismoore> Yes, plan is to align completely
[10:35:17] <borismoore> Just an example of avoiding multiple flavors
[10:35:37] <jzaefferer> okay
[10:35:46] <borismoore> Even i jQuery UI doesn't use JsViews, we need to try to avoid forking the observable pattern
[10:36:04] <brado23> That just makes for a better ecosystem here.
[10:36:22] <borismoore> right
[10:36:34] <brado23> I don't want to have to build data store-style pieces that treat two _almost_ equivalent observability patterns
[10:36:35] <jzaefferer> well, if 'observable pattern' refers to what we've implemented with $.observable, we should be good
[10:36:41] <brado23> yes
[10:36:51] <brado23> I think we're on track for that
[10:37:10] <jzaefferer> and you find issues with the API/impl, we should be able to address them quickly
[10:37:18] <brado23> gr8
[10:37:18] <borismoore> We just need to be prepared to deal with issues if they arise - e.g. needing 'originalValues', or whatever
[10:38:36] <brado23> I wonder when the right time is to consolidate on one $.observable.  Boris and I share a single version right now.  It'd be great to merge with Joern's.
[10:38:59] <brado23> ...something to take up offline methinks.
[10:39:10] <jzaefferer> usage shouldn't have changed that much
[10:39:37] <jzaefferer> if at all
[10:39:48] <brado23> let me take a closer look at yours then...and see how close we are to convergence.
[10:40:00] <jzaefferer> there's a single prototype for both object and arrays, but you had a single entry point before anyway
[10:40:53] <brado23> ok, I'll look more closely and circle back with you.  This could be a great mechanism to close on remaining issues too, which'd be great!
[10:42:29] <jzaefferer> okay
[10:43:21] <jzaefferer> as for custom inputs, afaik there wasn't much progress to report, I'll get in touch with Felix, Hans and Corey to get us some progress on selectmenu, datepicker and timepicker...
[10:43:27] <jzaefferer> anything else?
[10:43:59] <borismoore> not from me
[10:44:04] <brado23> nope
[10:44:29] <jzaefferer> okay, thanks, we'll keep in touch!
[10:44:39] <brado23> sounds good. cya
[10:44:40] <rworth> later
[10:44:45] <borismoore> ttyl