You don't get it. Using the .Render() function is one issue (the minor
one I might add).
The important issue is that you can't do something as simple as
$('object').hide() (say to hide all the objects on the page)
You basically can't do anything with $('object') ...
On Oct 31, 12:47 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that I look at this again... it simply doesn't fit the way we've
> been doing things until now.
>
> No one that has used jQuery for a while expects something like this to
> work:
>
> $('div').appendChild( blah );
>
> The jQuery object is simply different from its contained items. It
> exposes some methods to control them but doesn't mean it "mirrors"
> them.
>
> One can always add the Render function as a plugin, or as part of the
> final implementation.
>
> --
> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> On Oct 30, 5:03 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
