I'd agree that, at this point, the arguments approach could be removed, but
mixing bind-time data with trigger-time data makes no sense.
They have different uses.
--
Ariel Flesler
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Ricardo <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but you can only add properties to the event object when
> triggering, not alter/extend it's data property.
>
> $().bind('quack', {a:1}, function(e){
> console.log(e.data.a); // 1
> console.log(e.a); // 3
> });
> $().trigger({type: 'quack', data: {a:2}, a: 3});
>
> You'd have to set a second data object in the event obj to safely
> iterate over. There is already a property for that, so this seems
> overcomplicated. You can already pass other data as arguments,
> extending .data on triggering simplifies it all, there's no need for 3
> separate ways of passing data in.
>
> cheers
> -- ricardo
>
> On Jun 9, 8:59 am, Ariel Flesler <afles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it's ok the way it is now. e.data is for bind-time data and
> > the arguments are for trigger-time data.
> >
> > You can though pass a data object every time you trigger, that is,
> > passing it as the event object (must have type) then the data will be
> > copied to the event object you'll get.
> >
> > --
> > Ariel Flesler
> >
> > On Jun 7, 12:14 pm, sks <simon.shep...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm a big fan of JQuery, it's totally changed the way I write
> > > Javascript.
> >
> > > One thing it's started to make me do is to use custom events a lot
> > > more but something that has struck me is that the event.trigger seems
> > > to be somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the api in terms of
> > > passing variables around.
> > > The specific piece that I'm taking about is the event.data, when you
> > > bind things, you can incorporate the data into the call e.g.
> >
> > > foo.bind("bar", {foo: bar}); - where foo becomes a property of
> > > event.data
> >
> > > but when I trigger things I have to do this:
> >
> > > foo.trigger("bar", [{foo: bar1}])
> >
> > > and the extra data comes in as a second argument to the event being
> > > called.
> >
> > > While this is quite useful functionality, I feel it does depart
> > > somewhat from the original, I would expect to pass in an object that
> > > could extend and overwrite the original event.data object as well as
> > > being able to pass in extra arguments, so it might look something more
> > > like this:
> >
> > > foo.trigger("bar", {foo: bar1}, [{foo2: bar}];
> >
> > > where the 2nd argument ({foo: bar1}) overwrites the original property
> > > ({foo: bar}) like
> > > jQuery.extend({}, event.data, latestData);
> >
> > > I was wondering if there is any specific reason it is done this way &
> > > whether there is anywhere I could suggest that it is altered?
> >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > > Simon
> >
>
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
