Discussions

News: ZK 5 RC Released

Bookmark and Share Get thread feed

  1. ZK 5 RC Released (5 messages)

    The ZK team has released ZK 5 RC with its developer-centric focus and architectural innovations such as Server+Client Fusion and Ajax-as-a-Service. Since 2005 ZK has been known for its' server-centric approach. In addition, developers can now optionally leverage client-side programming. With the release of ZK 5 RC come some very important changes.
    • jQuery: ZK 5 now allows developers to maximize the user experience using enterprise-level ZK widgets and the simplicity of jQuery.
    • Ajax-as-a-Service: ZK 5 now brings the ability to load client-side JavaScript packages from distributed servers. This delivers EAI integration client-side.
    Download & other resources
    Reply to this

    Threaded Messages (5)

  2. grammar / spelling harridan[ Go to top ]

    Think of the words his, hers, and ours. All are possessive and all of them DO NOT have an apostrophe. Thus, "its" is the possessive, while "it's" is the contraction of "it is". There is no such word as its' in English.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  3. Re: ZK 5 RC Released[ Go to top ]

    Great! But, I am confused about what Ajax-as-a-Service really means. On the other hand, I like the concept of the so-called server+client fusion.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  4. Re: ZK 5 RC Released[ Go to top ]

    Great job!!! ZK is a great Web2.0 framework! Better than jsf!!! Simplicity really Matters!
    Reply to this Reply to original

  5. Still server-centric?[ Go to top ]

    Will ZK retain its powerful server-centric features in ZK 5 BTW, it's good to know ZK is under LGPL now.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  6. Re: Still server-centric?[ Go to top ]

    Will ZK retain its powerful server-centric features in ZK 5

    BTW, it's good to know ZK is under LGPL now.
    Hey Fabrice, yes all server-centric functionality is still retained but now we also provide client-centric functionality as an option!
    Reply to this Reply to original