Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and dropfunctionality?

Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
functionality?

Graham

Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
> functionality?

Google is your friend.


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On Feb 1, 7:26*pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> > Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
> > functionality?
>
> Google is your friend.
>
> --
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Yeah I found tones but all seem to have good points and bad points.

Graham

Laser Lips wrote on 02 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On Feb 1, 7:26*pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>> > Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
>> > functionality?
>>
>> Google is your friend.

> Yeah I found tones

Tones as in a number of 1000 kg?

> but all seem to have good points and bad points.

Probably you have too.

Better learn Javascript end build your own.

This NG is not, I hope not,
about discussing third party javascript scripts.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On 02 Feb 2010 21:26:11 GMT, Evertjan. wrote:

>Better learn Javascript end build your own.

Hmm, reinventing the wheel? Is that really necessary?

I thought that module reusability is a characteristic of good,
object-oriented programming languages. Not so?

Hans-Georg

Hans-Georg Michna wrote on 04 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On 02 Feb 2010 21:26:11 GMT, Evertjan. wrote:
>
>>Better learn Javascript end build your own.
>
> Hmm, reinventing the wheel? Is that really necessary?

Yes it is, when moost wheels are still square instread of round,
asking for the best imitation of round is not enough.

> I thought that module reusability is a characteristic of good,
> object-oriented programming languages. Not so?

This NG is about Javascript,
not about the reusability of black boxes,
even if they contain something written in Javascript,
unless the subject is about the content and
not about the blackbox external experience.

> of good, object-oriented programming languages.

You wrote the comma:

Javascript is a good language, inasfar it's useability, programmability
and logic teaching is concerned, and it is an object-oriented programming
language.

But it is NOT a "good object-oriented" programming language,
in the sense of use of black box modules,
beacause of many reasons, for instance:

It is designed to work on many interpreters, the quality of whicl differs
so, that the working of black box module cannot be garanteed.
The extend of the blackbox testing cannot be complete in this sense.

Black boxes in general are a bad idea without a service contract with a
reliable source, given that a build yourself programme has the benefit of
the programmer always being available for added debugging.

There is something as the "joy of programming", that is absent in the
sense of such boxes.


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

> Better learn Javascript end build your own.

Thanks for helpful comments Evertjan.

I have done exaclty that.

And yes I do have good points and bad points. It's called being
human.

Graham

Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> Better learn Javascript end build your own.

> Thanks for helpful comments Evertjan.

You are welcome.

> I have done exaclty that.

Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
and you must have leared somthing in the process.

> And yes I do have good points and bad points.

I was not discussing your points,

but if you say so ..

> It's called being human.

Such points are not restricted to human beings,
as Javascript has them too.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Evertjan,

> I was not discussing your points,

>> but all seem to have good points and bad points.

> Probably you have too. << you made reference to it here.

> Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
> and you must have leared somthing in the process.

I have indeed.

By the way, you really should check your spelling.

Graham


On Feb 10, 4:02*pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> >> Better learn Javascript end build your own.
> > Thanks for helpful comments Evertjan.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> > I have done exaclty that.
>
> Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
> and you must have leared somthing in the process.
>
> > And yes I do have good points and bad points. *
>
> I was not discussing your points,
>
> but if you say so ..
>
> > It's called being human.
>
> Such points are not restricted to human beings,
> as Javascript has them too.
>
> --
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> I was not discussing your points,
>
>>> but all seem to have good points and bad points.
>
>> Probably you have too. << you made reference to it here.
>
>> Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
>> and you must have leared somthing in the process.
>
> I have indeed.
>
> By the way, you really should check your spelling.

As long as my English is better than your Dutch,
you should not complain in this international NG, methinks.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On Feb 1, 8:26*pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> > Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
> > functionality?
>
> Google is your friend.

What an asshole.

> Evertjan.
> The Neanderthals.
--
Jorge.

Jorge wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:26 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
>>> functionality?

No. Start with a nested lists, enhance to expand/collapse on click
(there have been examples posted here in the past) and then worry about
drag and drop (if you really feel you need that). Using a turnkey
"solution" will never pan out.

>> Google is your friend.

So to speak. More like a bumbling lackey.

>
> What an asshole.

Nice contribution. Get better, Jorge!

David Mark wrote:
> Jorge wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 8:26 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>>> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>
>>>> Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
>>>> functionality?
>
> No. Start with a nested lists, enhance to expand/collapse on click
> (there have been examples posted here in the past) and then worry about
> drag and drop (if you really feel you need that). Using a turnkey
> "solution" will never pan out.
>
>>> Google is your friend.
>
> So to speak. More like a bumbling lackey.
>
>> What an asshole.
>
> Nice contribution. Get better, Jorge!

I have to agree, I googled the following text (without the quotes)
"javascript tree drag and drop"

The first hit included a perfect working example but wasn't free.
The second hit included a perfect working example that is free.

Time spent by google
Results 1 - 10 of about 104,000 for javascript tree drag and drop. (0.25
seconds)
Time spent by me:
< 1 minute

Google _is_ your friend.

Mike

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On 2/10/2010 2:10 PM, mscir wrote:
> I have to agree, I googled the following text (without the quotes)
> "javascript tree drag and drop"
>
> The first hit included a perfect working example but wasn't free.
> The second hit included a perfect working example that is free.
>

The OP asked for a recommendation, not the top result of a search.

mscir wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Jorge wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 8:26 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>>>> Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
>>>>> functionality?
>>
>> No. Start with a nested lists, enhance to expand/collapse on click
>> (there have been examples posted here in the past) and then worry about
>> drag and drop (if you really feel you need that). Using a turnkey
>> "solution" will never pan out.
>>
>>>> Google is your friend.
>>
>> So to speak. More like a bumbling lackey.
>>
>>> What an asshole.
>>
>> Nice contribution. Get better, Jorge!
>
> I have to agree, I googled the following text (without the quotes)
> "javascript tree drag and drop"
>
> The first hit included a perfect working example but wasn't free.

Careful with those demos. If you are referring to this one:-

http://dhtmlx.com/docs/products/dhtmlxTree/index.shtml

....it's a mess of browser sniffs under the hood. Hard to believe they
are trying to charge money for it.

> The second hit included a perfect working example that is free.

http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/index.ht...op-folder-tree

It's free, but hasn't been updated since 2006. That could mean one of
two things. It's such a perfect cross-browser rendition that it needs
no updates (highly unlikely) or it is abandoned. I didn't look into it,
but it is always safest to assume that these things are bunkware.

>
> Time spent by google
> Results 1 - 10 of about 104,000 for javascript tree drag and drop. (0.25
> seconds)
> Time spent by me:
> < 1 minute
>
> Google _is_ your friend.
>

Sometimes. It's very hard to find good JS examples, but that can't be
pinned on Google. There are just too many amateurs publishing too many
dubious scripts. They piece them together based on the UA string and
correlated observations and then either abandon them or waste everyone's
time with continuous do-overs and missives about "deprecated" browsers.
The users don't read the trades, so they don't know (or care to know)
that their browsers have been arbitrarily excluded to accommodate
incompetent developers.