@tres Haha. Are you insulting me?
On Aug 13, 3:05 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > @robert > > But widgets are all about DOM elements. So why shouldn't a widget > system be? > > I don't know about you, but I want the ability to add a multi-method > API to jQuery without cluttering it's namespace. Namespace clutter is > bad practice. > > http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/bestpractices/, scroll to: Avoid > Cluttering The Global Namespace, it also has links for closures and > private members > I know this talks about the global namespace, but this can very well > be applied to the jQuery namespace. > > http://www.dustindiaz.com/namespace-your-javascript/, another way for > private members, but similar in practice > > As for who expects .dialog() to return a namespace rather than display > something: When you call jQuery, what does it return? (Hint: a > namespace) > > On Aug 13, 10:43 am, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @tres > > > An plugin/widget system is about widgets, not DOM elements. > > If you have to extend jQuery adding some DOM related stuff, you will > > continue to add that stuff to jQuery or jQuery.fn directly or with > > extend(). > > > Closures are great to make "private" things, but it requires that > > "public" functions are defined inside that closure too. Good for > > "singletons", not for prototyping... > > > On Aug 13, 2:12 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And using: > > > > this.$el > > > > as the jQuery object array is cleaner than using just: > > > > this > > > > ?? > > > > I think a big issue we have right now - and I am also partially guilty > > > of this - is that we all want to have a part in this. In doing that we > > > get blinded by thinking that our way is the best way. > > > > What I see a lot of people trying to do, is make JavaScript into > > > something that it isn't. Call me crazy, but I don't think this is the > > > proper way to go about this. Yes, it's a very, very flexible language, > > > but it doesn't mean we need to change it's core behavior. This will > > > come over time. > > > > For what it's worth, in my $.namespace, I implement a very similar > > > method that jQuery's core does to implement its namespace and use > > > 'this' as an array. You can apply objects to jQuery using the way ES > > > intended objects to be used and constructed. Extending these plugins > > > are done in the same exact way as ES intended: .prototype. Or if > > > you're used to jQuery: .fn. This will allow for inheriting methods > > > that will automate plugin configuration etc. if needed. > > > > // create your plugin > > > $.fn.pluginName = $.namespace(constructor); > > > > // It doesn't require any special $.extend method, but you can use it: > > > $.extend($.fn.pluginName.fn, { > > > method1 : function() {}, > > > method2 : function() {} > > > > }); > > > > // or inheritance from an object: > > > $.extend($.fn.pluginName.fn, constructor.prototype); > > > > Introducing a whole new way to do something that you can already do > > > and adding special rules for "readonly" methods (i.e. "_") immediately > > > will make developing a widget/plugin for jQuery much less accessible > > > and much less usable. You can already create private methods anyways: > > > > ;(function($) { > > > > // yes, this is 'private' > > > function private() {}; > > > > // but this is public > > > $.fn.test = function() { > > > // but you can use private here > > > return private(); > > > }; > > > > })(jQuery); > > > > Look, I am not trying to say that everyone needs to use my way, or > > > that anyone does. I believe it is the best way to approach this - > > > currently. But that is my opinion based on certain facts. I am also > > > not trying to be arrogant or offensive, even though it may be. Sorry > > > for that. > > > > On Aug 13, 9:29 am, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The big picture > > > > > // this is so much more right > > > > $('div').dialog().open(); > > > > // than this > > > > $('div').dialog('open'); > > > > > In more than one language, and there is more than one reason, too ... > > > > > Also. Are some "obsessed" with inheritance, here ? > > > > This subject is "done and dusted" in the OO community, way way back, > > > > in eighties. > > > > If you have time, here is one balanced article (and also interesting > > > > to this community ) :http://www.berniecode.com/writing/inheritance/ > > > > > Etc ... > > > > > --DBJ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
