Convert 3rd-party 3.x Dojo widget to JavaScript 4.x for another 3rd-party solution

347
2
Jump to solution
01-03-2023 09:13 AM
JonathanDandois
Occasional Contributor

I have a Web AppBuilder widget provided from a 3rd-party vendor that I believe is in the 3.x format. The "manifest.json" says it is "wabVersion: 2.11" and it uses the Dojo `define` AMD pattern. The widget is from the vendor Hyland and provides interaction and display features for our OnBase document management system overtop of web maps and feature layers. I am trying to port it into a VertiGIS Studio Web Viewer Component using the VertiGIS SDK and based off of this sample, but I believe that requires a JavaScript 4.x widget? https://vertigis-web-samples.netlify.app/arcgis-widget

The widget is pretty comprehensive. There is a Vanilla JS API script that is a few thousand lines and a large Dojo ViewModel.js that is 3000+ lines, it doesn't seem like that is directly transferrable to the 4.x framework. Would Hyland need to update their widget to ArcGIS for JS 4.x framework?

Asking the community here to get a better sense of what I am asking and what I am trying to achieve so that I can go back to the vendor(s) better informed. Very likely this also needs to go to the VertiGIS and Hyland forums, but I am starting here!

Thanks! 

 

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
AndyGup
Esri Regular Contributor

Hi @JonathanDandois I recommend contacting VertiGIS. They can help you work through the migration and licensing process. Migrating from 3.x to 4.x will involve a complete re-write, here is an overview: https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/latest/migrating/.

View solution in original post

2 Replies
AndyGup
Esri Regular Contributor

Hi @JonathanDandois I recommend contacting VertiGIS. They can help you work through the migration and licensing process. Migrating from 3.x to 4.x will involve a complete re-write, here is an overview: https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/latest/migrating/.

JonathanDandois
Occasional Contributor

@AndyGup thank you, that was my expectation as well. I think that is the correct approach. 

0 Kudos