Ops,
function __call__(name, args){
this.each(function(){
this[name].apply(this, args || []);
});
return this;
};
better ... this should let you do something like
$("#objectid").Render();
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
