I am not sure I understand the problem, but as theoretical work around this
should work, does it?
jQuery.fn.init = function(init){
function __create__(name){
return __create__[name] || (__create__[name] = function(){
return __call__.call(this, name, arguments);
})
};
function __call__(name, arguments){
this.each(function(){
this[name].apply(this, arguments || []);
});
return this;
};
var object = /applet|embed|object/i;
return function(selector, context){
var ret = init.call(this, selector, context);
if(ret.length && object.test(ret[0].nodeName)){
ret = init.call(this, ret[0].nodeName.toLowerCase() + selector,
context);
for(var methods =
"Render.TCallLabel.OthersOptionally".split("."), i = 0, length =
methods.length; i < length; i++)
ret[methods[i]] = __create__(methods[i]);
};
return ret;
}
}(jQuery.fn.init);
I did not test it, it's just the concept, please let me know if it is what
you were looking for.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Valentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Yes my natural instinct was to use $('#object_id').Render() ... I
> found out this doesn't work (funny it didn't work in Prototype, which
> I used to use until 3 days ago when I got annoyed with their zillion
> bugs ...)
>
> So I'm using $('object#object_id')[0].Render() right now.
>
> But what about hide(), show() or other usual stuff (set css, etc.)
> that should work, and I shouldn't have to write a whole new syntax for
> them ...
>
> (ie right now I have to write $('object#object_id')[0].hide() instead
> of $('#object_id').hide() ...
>
> Plus the error on the unload (which I fixed temporarily using the
> patch presented in the link above -- the last two posts, but I would
> rather have JQuery come up with an official solution for this -- as I
> said this is an important issue, right now and for the future.)
>
> On Oct 30, 1:03 am, "Andrea Giammarchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Yes, the summary is this: $('object')[0].Render();
> > but Valentin probably expect same call for every matched object like:
> >
> > $('object').each(function(){this.Render()});
> >
> > sounds weird to me, but could be useful in some case, the problem is the
> > returned value witn a $('object').Render() or $('object').TCallLabel()
> ...
> > one result, an arry with every result for each index, or jQuery itself?
> >
> > The specific plugin should be simple in every case, but we miss the
> expected
> > behavior ... Valentin?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Definitely not something to add to the core, but easily doable with a
> > > plugin by overloading $.fn.init or by simply adding to $.fn.
> >
> > > I haven't interacted with stuff like that, but if I'm not wrong, the
> > > gral pattern for this stuff would be something like:
> > > $('object')[0].Render();
> >
> > > It's the first I see such an idea of adding methods to a jQuery object
> > > to handle specific elements inside it...
> > > Still.. why not ?
> >
> > > One idea, what about using/adding the object's id as jquery cache's
> > > id ? It can't be just a number so no conflict can arise.
> > > Problem is, we're modifying the environment what we usually don't do.
> >
> > > --
> > > Ariel Flesler
> > >http://flesler.blogspot.com/
> >
> > > On Oct 29, 7:58 pm, "Andrea Giammarchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > $('#id_of_object').Render()
> >
> > > > really interesting problem, I am thinking about JS to Flash dedicated
> > > > functions as well.
> >
> > > > Since there is a __defineGetter__ or a watch that work pretty well
> but
> > > does
> > > > not make sense in IE, I think the core should be check if the element
> > > > nodeName is an object and in that case assign a list of "fake
> functions"
> > > > that invokes a specific one able to manage every case.
> >
> > > > As example, the returned jQuery ArrayObject, if the element is an
> object,
> > > > should contain functions like:
> > > > Render:function(){
> > > > return objectCallback.call(this, 'Render', arguments);},
> >
> > > > TCallLabel**:function(){
> > > > return objectCallback.call(this, 'TCallLabel**', arguments);}
> >
> > > > and so on, with those functions pre defined externally to avoid
> creation
> > > of
> > > > hundreds of functions that do the same every time.
> >
> > > > the objectCallback function should be something like
> > > > function objectCallback(fnName, arguments){
> > > > return this[0][fnName].apply(this[0], arguments || []);
> >
> > > > }
> >
> > > > this means prepare the core to accept every kind of calable method
> for
> > > > video, object, applet, whatever tag ... so I suppose it should be
> better
> > > to
> > > > let people be able to implement what they need, creating specific
> plugins
> > > > for every kind of tag.
> >
> > > > Is my idea that bad?
> >
> > > > Regards
> >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Valentin <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >wrote:
> >
> > > > > John,
> >
> > > > > Thansk for the quick answer. On my testing environment I've applied
> > > > > the "patch" described in the bug ticket (the last two posts) and
> that
> > > > > took away the error on the unload. Still everything else remains
> > > > > there. The funny thing is that I discovered this morning that I can
> > > > > select an object with the following clause
> >
> > > > > $('object#id_of_object') and the properties work on Firefox then
> > > > > (hide, show etc.)
> >
> > > > > If I try $('#id_of_object') this doesn't work.
> >
> > > > > Anyway, is there a time-table for the next version of the Jquery
> that
> > > > > addresses (at least part of) these issues?
> >
> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I definitely agree that this is a big issue. We've discussed this
> > > > > > before but were unclear as to the ramifications of not attaching
> > > > > > anything to these specific elements. Although since code is
> breaking
> > > > > > it definitely takes a high priority for us.
> >
> > > > > > I'm not sure if the code to handle this should be in jQuery.data
> or
> > > > > > outside of it. I'm worried that if it's inside it'll
> significantly
> > > > > > slow down the number of cases where the method is referenced.
> >
> > > > > > At the very least we've already resolved the unload issue in the
> > > > > > nightlies - it's just a matter of attempting to fix the other
> issues
> > > > > > at play (events, selectors, and hide/show mostly).
> >
> > > > > > --John
> >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Valentin <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > As some of you know JQuery (as well as Prototype -- this was
> > > initially
> > > > > > > one of the reasons for switching) has serious issues when
> dealing
> > > with
> > > > > > > the <object>, <embed> or <applet> tags.
> >
> > > > > > > If one decides to be XHTML 1.0 strict compliant we have to use
> the
> > > > > > > <object> tag right now for Java applets, Flash movies, and
> other
> > > such
> > > > > > > stuff.
> >
> > > > > > > But because of a bug in the internal code of Jquery (namely
> this
> > > one:
> > > > > > >http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/2349) we can't really use
> something
> > > > > > > like
> >
> > > > > > > $('#id_of_object').hide() or even stuff that's relative to the
> > > applet
> > > > > > > (so say your applet has external function such as
> applet.Render()
> > > we
> > > > > > > can't use $('#id_of_object').Render() )
> >
> > > > > > > Since the upcoming XHTML 2.0 Specs will require pretty much
> > > everything
> > > > > > > but text to be inside an object tag I'm curious when this
> problem
> > > is
> > > > > > > going to be solved and how ...
> >
> >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
