On 16/10/06, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that there's a simpler answer to this.
>
> If we're going to overhaul the API that much, we need to do three things.
>
> 1. Talk it out thoroughly, and make sure we get it "right" this time.
> 2. Publish a new full release of jQuery (2.0).
> 3. Put all of the "breaking changes" at the top of the README.
>
> Also, from a different branch of the discussion, I'm all for namespacing.
> But, in the case of jQuery, where terseness is one of it's greatest
> assets, we should use very selective namespacing.
>
> e.g.
> $.ajaxStop() -> $.ajax.stop()
> $.serialize() -> $.form.serialize(), $.xml.serialize()
> $.load() -> $.on.load(), $.ajax.load()
> $.unload -> $.on.unload() {unload event}, $.un.load() {remove load() event}
> $.filter -> Don't change this. :)
>
> The idea is that we make the names VERY English-intuitive, and resolve the
> name collisions we have using as few characters as possible - adding only
> a dot to an already existing function, if possible/applicable.
>
> Thoughts?
Not too keen on namespacing (is it really required? will make the code
more verbose and chaining could become confusing), but I agree that if
the API changes that much it should be a 2.0 release rather than 1.x.
Breaking changes should be the first thing people see before
downloading (or maybe second after saying why it should be
downloaded).
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
