DW Boostrap issues with jQuery

[Ken Lenz Design]

Hey Guys,

I am pulling my hair out with this one.. I built a website with Boostrap in Dreamweaver CC 2017,and all is good, but when you build a page using bootstrap it puts a jQuery call at the bottom or the page example below... The problem arises when I try to add a random image rotator that also uses jQuery but a different version, and so if I get rid of the jQuery call at the bottom of the page (1.11.3min.js) the navbar dropdown menus stop working, but the random image rotator works. And if I get rid of the call for the random rotator the navbar starts working again..

I have tried several different image rotators that are jQuery and they will not work while the Boostrap jQuery call is at the bottom of the page.

How can I get all to work on the page? Is this a common problem with Dreamweaver CC 2017??

<!-- jQuery (necessary for Bootstrap's JavaScript plugins) -->

  <script src="js/jquery-1.11.3.min.js"></script>

  <!-- Include all compiled plugins (below), or include individual files as needed -->

  <script src="js/bootstrap.js"></script>

Here is the call/jQuery code:

<script src="Scripts/jquery.min.js"></script>

    <script src="Scripts/jquery.banner-rotator.js"></script>

    <script>

        $(window).load(function() {

            $('#myRotator').bannerRotator({

                width:963,

                height:456,

  delay:8000,

                cpanelPosition:'center bottom',

                navButtons:'large',

                navThumbs:false,

                tooltip:'image',

                depth:'auto',

  shuffle: true,

  effect: 'fade',

  pauseOnHover: true,

  thumbnails:'none',

  playButton:false

            });

        });

    </script>

  <script>

  $(window).load(function() {

  $('#myRotator2').bannerRotator({

  width:286,

  height:456,

  effect:'fade',

  shuffle:true,

  timer:'none',

  navButtons:'none',

  hideControl:true,

  pauseOnHover: true,

  playButton:false,

  thumbnails:'none'

  });

  });

  </script>

Thanks

Ken

[Nancy OShea]

Which jQuery library do you need for your image rotator script?  If it's 1.11 or 1.12, it should work fine with Bootstrap.  You do not want 2 jQuery scripts.   Only one.

Now if your rotator script is using jQuery 1.10 or earlier, you need to find  or write a newer script.

Nancy

[ALsp]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

Which jQuery library do you need for your image rotator script?  If it's 1.11 or 1.12, it should work fine with Bootstrap.  You do not want 2 jQuery scripts.   Only one.

Now if your rotator script is using jQuery 1.10 or earlier, you need to find  or write a newer script.

Nancy

And therein lies just one the reasons Adobe should not be in the business of pulling off the shelf free libraries written by other people into Dreamweaver. I feel bad for the original poster, but it's kind of funny, in a sad way. You really expect people to accept this, huh?

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

And therein lies just one the reasons Adobe should not be in the business of pulling off the shelf free libraries written by other people into Dreamweaver. I feel bad for the original poster, but it's kind of funny, in a sad way. You really expect people to accept this, huh?

Sorry AL, but even though I agree about Dreamweaver not using 3rd party solution, the other 2 alternatives are in my opinion just as bad.

We could ask Adobe to develop their own solutions, which we both know would probably be worse.

The second alternative, is to leave everything to extension developers, which leaves Dw users with only what extension developers think we should have. Also unacceptable in my opinion.

Of course, there is a 3rd possibility, and that is for Dw to improve its support for modern W3C standards, and modern javascript. That way users can develop their own solutions, but we both know how difficult, (almost impossible) it would be to get Dw to do that.

[BenPleysier]

Although this is not what the OP asked for, should Dreamweaver include of-the-shelf libraries, I do believe that this is a good solution, as long as those libraries are well maintained.

I know that we should not glance at the past, but we can learn from the past when we look at inclusions managed by Adobe, thinking here of ADDT, Spry, SB and FGL. This means that we should never rely on solutions from Adobe.

Leaving this to 3rd party extension developers is an excellent idea. That way we are at least guaranteed of quality solutions. The downside is when a novice gets hold of Dreamweaver and thinks that a website will descend from above.

Even when Dreamweaver were to include support for W3C compliancy (something I do agree with), this would still not solve the problem of the novice.

Now we are back to where I started, and I name Bootstrap as the so-called culprit.

As a novice, I am surprised that, by clicking on a few buttons, I can create a web document complete with a menu-bar, jumbotron, thumbnails and images in a circle. I am a web developer until I realise that I need to add a colours and that my navigation bar includes elements that I do not want. These novices then go searching for a solution. Is this so bad?

As an experienced web-developer, I may ignore Bootstrap because it is 'bloated'. I go my own way and code by hand, giving me enormous satisfaction. Oops! Dreamweaver does not contain full support for Flex. That's Ok, I know how to use it even without the support of Dreamweaver. After all I have got a series of code snippets that I use all the time. Is this so bad?

As a web-developer who is time-conscious, I would look for solutions that save time. I will use a ready-made framework, I will use extensions from 3rd parties (for which I am grateful and the only reason I use Dreamweaver) and I will use workflows that facilitate my needs (pre-/pro-processing). I don't give a hoot for a CSS Designer panel and some of the other panels. I don't mind them being included, but I ignore them. Is this so bad?

In summary, yes we do need support for W3C standards, we do need support for extensions, we do need support for version control, we do need support for installers, we do need support for backend coding and debugging. At the same time Dreamweaver needs to support the novice.

[pziecina]

I have nothing against supporting the novice, only those who cannot be bothered to learn the basics of html and css, i have no time for.

Nothing infurates me more than someone who does not know what to do, when a solution is provided. I can see Muse, and similar programs taking over completely for simple web sites, and the division between what someone calling themselves a 'web designer', and someone calling themselves a 'web developer' actually produces as a web site diverging even more.

I am no longer interested in what Dreamweaver does and does not support. As time goes by I find myself more interested in the question of should I completely retire, or not, and have come to the conclussion that so long as I can do what I wish in a program, be it Dw or VS, the rest is upto Dw users of the future.

If others only want 3rd party solutions, then they should say so. Otherwise users like me should use another program.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

As an experienced web-developer, I may ignore Bootstrap because it is 'bloated'. I go my own way and code by hand, giving me enormous satisfaction. Oops!

It not only gives you enormous satisfaction but you actually get to learn something as well which will improve your overall ability to troubleshoot situations when they arise or build something which an extension or template cannot, is that so bad?

If the OP knew some coding  they quite possibly would not find themselves in a bit a mess, is that so bad?

What is so bad is the ability to deploy these complex solutions with a click and play option without really knowing how they work.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

ALsp   wrote

And therein lies just one the reasons Adobe should not be in the business of pulling off the shelf free libraries written by other people into Dreamweaver. I feel bad for the original poster, but it's kind of funny, in a sad way. You really expect people to accept this, huh?

Sorry AL, but even though I agree about Dreamweaver not using 3rd party solution, the other 2 alternatives are in my opinion just as bad.

We could ask Adobe to develop their own solutions, which we both know would probably be worse.

The second alternative, is to leave everything to extension developers, which leaves Dw users with only what extension developers think we should have. Also unacceptable in my opinion.

Of course, there is a 3rd possibility, and that is for Dw to improve its support for modern W3C standards, and modern javascript. That way users can develop their own solutions, but we both know how difficult, (almost impossible) it would be to get Dw to do that.

I guess it's not bad for Adobe since they really do not provide customer support beyond scripted offshore type of stuff... but what the hell. And geez, I'm not suggesting that Extensions be the only solutions. How do you think the original poster found his widget? And why do you think he is posting on this forum. Please think about it.

[pziecina]

I do feel sorry for the OP, but -

1. He should have known about script incompatability problems, after all anyone being paid to create a web site, should know what they are doing.
2. Dw should have a warning in BIG letters, saying that anything relying on older scripts will cause compatability problems.

[pziecina]

I apologise to the OP for this post.

BenPleysier​

Just thought you may be interested in this -

Firefox has three more fails to fix, and then css grid layout specs meets the exit criteria to move to a recommendation.

And to the person in another forum, who sent me a PM, saying I should create well commented starter pages for Flexbox and grid layouts, if I really wish to help users with using flexbox and css grid layouts -

"You know exactly what you can do with that suggestion, xxxxx xxx ", (insert all the words you can think of Os, as I can guarantee I thought of them ).

[osgood_]

Retirement sounds better than dealing with plonkers. I shall just carry on doing what l do, as it works for me. I'm largely in control of what l do and not reliant on 3rd party stuff, not that its bad used in moderation but when you use it as life support it becomes almost impossible to think or do anything for yourself.

[pziecina]

Thankfully i don't have to deal with plonkers in my actual work, but even so, full retirement looks better every time i look at it.

Even though i have lost interest in Dw, i do enjoy a good discussion. What annoys me about the OP's problem is that there is a solution to using two versions of jQuery, but it requires a good knowledge of how js sandboxing works, and does not work in IE. Even if it did, Dw does not have any support for creating the js beyond, 'you can write javascript'.

All those who use Dw are not stupid, and some, (probably many) could probably leave me standing when it comes to front-end development, and it is those i feel sorry for. We both know how difficult it is to find a new development program, which is probably all that is stopping many users from doing so.

They can add every 3rd party feature they like, if the code is not supported in a way users want to use it, then anything they do is a waste of time and money.

[osgood_]

Bottom line is the more you use the mix and match technique the greater possibility that something will conflict. I'm just glad l put the hours in as l wouldnt like to use the throw it up in the air method and hope it all lands the right way up.

[Nancy OShea]

pziecina  wrote

Dw should have a warning in BIG letters, saying that anything relying on older scripts will cause compatability problems.

Do roller skates come with big red letter warnings on the box?  I don't think so.

Anybody who combines plugins has to know there is a risk of conflict.  That's just common sense.

Nancy

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

pziecina   wrote

Dw should have a warning in BIG letters, saying that anything relying on older scripts will cause compatability problems.

Do roller skates come with big red letter warnings on the box?  I don't think so.

Anybody who combines plugins has to know there is a risk of conflict.  That's just common sense.

Nancy

That was my first point, i should have written, 'maybe', at the start of the second point.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea   wrote

pziecina    wrote

Dw should have a warning in BIG letters, saying that anything relying on older scripts will cause compatability problems.

Do roller skates come with big red letter warnings on the box?  I don't think so.

Anybody who combines plugins has to know there is a risk of conflict.  That's just common sense.

Nancy

That was my first point, i should have written, 'maybe', at the start of the second point.

Philosophically correct... I guess. But you both completely miss the real issue, and that issue is the care and coddling of customers... an art which has died a sad death. Adobe is doomed to fail... at least with Dreamweaver... because their public forum has sunk to a level where the typical user's concerns are not addressed or considered. There is little empathy on this forum, and Adobe employees are simply referees. It amazes me that so many people fail to understand that the art of customer service involves empathy and adjusting one's approach to match the customer's perceived level of knowledge.

Oh well. There must be a rocking choir around here somewhere, because that's where all the preaching seems to be pointing

[pziecina]

Not really AL, this is a user to user forum, not a manufacturers product support forum. For which different criteria apply.

In a user to user forum, one is not expected to teach a user how to use a product, and a basic knowledge of what the person supplying the answer is saying, is expected from the person asking the question, plus a knowledge of how to use the answer if supplied. Which it was at the beginning by telling the user about script incompatability, though i will admit someone may have suggested using the 'no conflict' jQuery feature, but i don't use jQuery so i am not certain if it would work.

Product support, i would expect not only to provide help with learning the product, but also tutorials to be available that one could direct a user to.

Plus if it was product support, i would also expect the person supplying answers to have more support from the team, in implementing missing features, (and we both know, neither of us will ever get that).

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

Not really AL, this is a user to user forum, not a manufacturers product support forum. For which different criteria apply.

Hi Paula,

I know what kind of forum this is. Never said it was Adobe's official support forum. The fact that it is not, simply reinforces my assertion that Adobe does not really provide for the care of its customers. You might want to re-read my post

[pziecina]

The problem is that when Adobe aquired Dreamweaver as part of the package, they -

1. Aquired a program they did not want,
2. Tried to use a design only approach to a media they did not understand, (the web).
3. Failed to keep up with what was required.
4. Hoped the product would just disappear

Then to make things worse, they spent millions developing 'other' programs that they hoped would kill it off completly. Without a change in attitude from Adobe, and the senior Dw managment, (plus a few other people) trying to defend Dw, and help users, even on a user to user basis will always be a problem.

No blame for this situation, can be attatched to anyone, or any staff in this forum though.

[Ken Lenz Design]

Below is the code that are being called:

<!-- jQuery (necessary for Bootstrap's JavaScript plugins) -->

  <script src="js/jquery-1.11.3.min.js"></script>

  <!-- Include all compiled plugins (below), or include individual files as needed -->

  <script src="js/bootstrap.js"></script>

Here is the call/jQuery code:

<script src="Scripts/jquery.min.js"></script>

    <script src="Scripts/jquery.banner-rotator.js"></script>

    <script>

        $(window).load(function() {

            $('#myRotator').bannerRotator({

                width:963,

                height:456,

  delay:8000,

                cpanelPosition:'center bottom',

                navButtons:'large',

                navThumbs:false,

                tooltip:'image',

                depth:'auto',

  shuffle: true,

  effect: 'fade',

  pauseOnHover: true,

  thumbnails:'none',

  playButton:false

            });

        });

    </script>

  <script>

  $(window).load(function() {

  $('#myRotator2').bannerRotator({

  width:286,

  height:456,

  effect:'fade',

  shuffle:true,

  timer:'none',

  navButtons:'none',

  hideControl:true,

  pauseOnHover: true,

  playButton:false,

  thumbnails:'none'

  });

  });

  </script>

[Nancy OShea]

Here's the problem as I see it.  You have 2 calls to jQuery's core library.

This:

<!-- jQuery (necessary for Bootstrap's JavaScript plugins) -->

  <script src="js/jquery-1.11.3.min.js"></script>

And this:

<script src="Scripts/jquery.min.js"></script>

So remove one of them.   You do not want 2 jQuery scripts in your document.

Nancy

[BenPleysier]

Ken,

The way I structure a document is as

HEAD

     meta tags

     title

     CSS

BODY

     content

     JS

The code that you have shown in reply #3 consists of

1. calling the jQuery library (may be called just once per document)
2. calling the Banner-Rotator library, which needs jQuery to be loaded first
3. creating two constructors one for each of the two Rotators

Now, if we look at a properly constructed JS section, this would look like

1. link to jQuery.js
2. link to Bootstrap.js
3. link to Banner-Rotator.js
4. constructors.