Question Complaints about Mootools

Jiminimonka wrote: Sunny33days,

You will also notice, if you read, that Mootools is part of Joomla, not part of Kunena, so direct your Mootools questions to forum.joomla.org/

Thanks.

that's is quite right...

if i disable mootools-more and mootools-core (i found a plugin for this that works very well) everything in joomla works fine except of kunena (boardcode crashes)

so, this is a problem related to kunena

and this is a BIG problem, cause that damned mootools in j2.5 takes 50% of my pages weight

Since Mootools is part of Joomla now, the correct way for extensions to work is to use Mootools, to stop conflicts later down the line.

If Mootools is using up too many resources on your server and that is an issue, you need to upgrade, seriously, as your server must be from the 1980s.

rexet wrote: so, this is a problem related to kunena

and this is a BIG problem, cause that damned mootools in j2.5 takes 50% of my pages weight

As I've stated before, many other extensions use the Mootools library, it's not just Kunena. This is a library that's provided by Joomla and is available to use by any extension. The Kunena installation package doesn't actually contain the Mootools library, it's already part of your Joomla installation.

Also as I mentioned before, the library is downloaded once by the browser and then cached locally. Subsequent requests for the library result in nothing being downloaded. So that initial burden only happens once. Once the library has been cached locally, ALL extensions that make use of it on your site no longer need to download it. Utilities like PageSpeed and YSlow do not take this into account when they evaluate a page, they only assume initial page load.

Furthermore, the library is usually compressed by the server before being sent to a user's browser, so its actual size and download burden is even smaller than reported. Using a CSS/JS gzipper is typically a bad idea, since it just ends up breaking the gzipped CSS/JS files. However the built-in Joomla gzip compression functionality (enabled in the Joomla Control Panel) works very well and doesn't break anything.

Finally, the Mootools javascript library is a defacto standard all over the web, used in many large and popular web sites that you probably visit daily. It allows web developers to include advanced, cross-browser compatible features using minimal coding. So in the end, using Mootools can actually LIGHTEN the overall burden of a site since the javascript code requirements for extensions are lessened in the process. Once that library is cached in your browser, it does everything without requiring any further downloads.

Jiminimonka wrote: If Mootools is using up too many resources on your server and that is an issue, you need to upgrade, seriously, as your server must be from the 1980s.

first: learn to read = work in progress

rexet wrote: that damned mootools in j2.5 takes 50% of my pages weight

my website is on a Intel Xeon E3-1270 3.40GHZ dedicated server, 4MB memory with mysql on a separete SSD disk

@Goreman: thanks for your depth answer

I am a little confused, I can't see work in progress anywhere in your post.

Goreman gave you a definitive answer now.

Time for me to leave the conversation.

*** Topic moved and subject changed ***

When this topic started 7½ months ago, it was the opinions of some users that the Kunena project should be aware about how "expensive" it was to have to use Mootools. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I think we think carefully how we express those opinions.

Mootools is an integral part of Joomla and is a fundamental requirement of Kunena but this topic has long strayed from the purpose of the General Talk about Kunena category which is where people can comment or offer suggestions the Kunena product, this website and plans for the future. This topic has consistently been an unending stream of complainst about Mootools.

The basis of arguments against Mootools: These arguments are based on assumptions derived from the use of unnamed analysis tools; these tools look at the ingredients of a user's webpage and calculate the relative density of each of those parts. These analyses are calculated on a one-time, "snapshot" basis; the conclusions are are not intended to be scientific proof that a person's site is in urgent need of an overhaul. These tools are indicators of possible areas for improvement. Some of these tools conclude that Mootools represents a significant proportion of a site's download "cost" to the end user. This may be true - we are not denying the evidence - but, notwithstanding this truth, the fact remains that if people want to use Kunena they need Joomla with its Mootools library.

Many people put their complete faith the advice of these [unnamed] analysis tools instead of listening to their users. It would be curious to run same web analysis tools on this site and we may discover other fascinating information. Does knowing that information change the way that this site runs or how it might better run according to the conclusions of such analysis tools?

The facts: Kunena needs Joomla to run. Joomla needs Javascript to work, Kunena needs Javascript to work and without Mootools neither Joomla nor Kunena will work. These are the facts. If web analysis tools suggest that the size of the Mootools library is a factor that adversely contributes to a website's overall improvement then that, too, is a fact.

The real question is how to carry forward this topic. I have moved the topic and renamed the subject to our Miscellaneous, off-topic and general Joomla category but, for me, it is probably time that I left this conversation, too.