Question on modern vs classic toolkits

[jorgemanrubia]

Hi,

From the docs:

Classic

The classic toolkit provides traditional Ext JS 5 application support. This includes support for the desktop browsers, tablets, and touchscreen enabled laptops. For more information about specific support, see the product page.

Modern

The modern toolkit provides universal HTML5 application support all modern browsers (IE10+) from desktop to phone. For more information about specific support, see the product page.

For modern it says that it's also suitable for desktop apps. I checked the api docs and I saw that, for example, the date picker in "Modern" is the touch datepicker (wheels), while the traditional calendar date picker is only in Classic. Or HtmlEditor is only in classic.

For this I assume that:

- Modern: Touch devices
- Classic: Desktop devices (with touch support to some extent)

Am I correct? The terminology confuses me a little bit. "Classic" sounds like legacy, something to be deprecated at some point, and "Modern" sounds like the way to go if you are starting from scratch (specially with that line talking about "modern browsers... from desktop to phone"). I think that, for example, the wheel-based date picker will feel weird for a desktop app using a mouse.

Thanks and kudos for the amazing job with this new version.

Regards

[suzuki1100nz]

Hi,

Yes the modern toolkit is effectively the Touch framework widgets - right now anyway and as you point out is not the best option when building a desktop application.
That said at senchacon the engineering team made it clear that their primary focus will be on achieving parity between the two toolkits, so eventually (hopefully soon) the modern toolkit will have the same widget set as Classic.

This is perfect for those app developers that are not required to support legacy browsers (IE) and want a more performant application on all devices i.e. full use of CSS3 and HTML features such as flexbox and no requirements for a JS layout manager

[Gary Schlosberg]

This page explains it a bit more than the excerpt above:
http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.0/wha...whats_new.html

One of the biggest changes in Ext JS 6 is the merger of Ext JS and Touch into a single framework. The core of the previous frameworks (data, controllers, models, etc) has been reconciled into a singular, common platform. This allows for shared data and logic, which can help developers optimize their applications even further.


Those things that still remain unique have been broken down into two distinct toolkits, Classic and Modern. These toolkits are made up by the view layers from Ext JS and Touch, respectively. Applications that share core resources and logic and utilize both toolkits are known as Universal applications.

[dongryphon]

What @suzuki1100nz and @Gary said We are and will continue to be hard at work to bring feature parity to the modern toolkit in this and subsequent releases of Ext JS 6.

[jnfrancois]

So if we are starting a new desktop app from scratch that we later on will adapt to mobile what would be your advise for the best setup to start with ?

Universal, classic or modern ?

Can we add modern toolkit later on, if we start with classic ?

Thank you

[suzuki1100nz]

Depends on what you're trying to achieve and what components you require.

If you're going to build the ultimate single 'universal' application with responsive design for all devices that needs to be performant and you are not required to deliver to legacy browsers I would use 'modern', that is provided the component set serves your application needs.
The modern toolkit as it stand is short on a lot of components for a desktop and tablet application.

However as Don said the team are focused on bringing component parity.

If you have a completely different UI/UX design for mobile then I would do the desktop build in 'classic' and your mobile build in 'modern'.

If your not supporting legacy browsers then when Sencha achieve component parity you should be able to, in a perfect world, simply change in app.json your toolkit library from 'classic', to 'modern' and rebuild your desktop application and you will have your desktop app in 'modern' and all things being equal it should be more performant on desktop, this is probably more advantageous if your desktop application is your tablet delivery as well.

[apoothatta]

Why not merge both toolkits into one? I'm sure it would be easier for developers to use one toolkit where they can make use of components and layouts specific to their device and screen size requirements than have multiple toolkits with overlapping applications. Is the long-term goal to keep these toolkits seperate?

[suzuki1100nz]

The ultimate goal would be a full merge of the toolkits.
The barrier to this right now is the component toolkit differences and the need to support legacy browsers (Yes a lot of the community have customers that need this).

My expectation is that once legacy browser support is no longer required (thats going to be a log while off) then the classic toolkit will be dropped after the usual support period - Those with existing classic applications should be able to easily rebuild there classic apps into modern.

At the end of the day the modern toolkit is the full HTML5 CSS3 toolkit and those that aren't hamstrung by legacy support will want to be using this toolkit as it will be far more performant on smart phone, tablet and desktop for that matter.

I suspect once component parity is achieved across the two toolkits the majority of developers will be using the modern toolkit and as I said it is easy enough to swap toolkits later if you are starting in classic right now because you need the richer component set.

[jnfrancois]

Great, thank you !

[Iveco]

Thanks, this thread clarified a lot for me!