I think you are right that jQuery needs an widget system, but $
(..).dialog().open() does not look better than $(..).dialog('open') to
me,
Namespaces doesn't fit well within jQuery. Implementation would be
really dirty.I made an my solution for plugin authoring with inheritance http://bender.fesb.hr/~robert/jquery-plugin-inheritance/. Maybe someone will find it useful. On Aug 6, 5:50 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think if plugin developers were to start utilizing a prototypal > inheritance, it would make the most sense to put it into the core. > This doesn't mean the current way of extending jQuery needs to change, > this just adds to it and makes an api much easier to write, understand > and use. As a plugin developer who has written many plugins (not > necessarily released) I have found it very, very frustrating to write > a plugin with more than 1 function in jQuery. I don't want to pass > 'this' as a parameter, nor do I want to use the .dialog('open') > method. The former isn't the jQuery way and the latter just seems > dirty. > > On Aug 6, 1:14 pm, aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I too believe prototypal inheritance should be left out. > > > But, in general, I'd love to see a change like this in jquery.ui ... > > > On Aug 5, 10:36 pm, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > // would now allow > > > $('div').dialog().open(); > > > > // instead of > > > $('div').dialog('open'); --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
