I certainly would appreciate any collaborative effort. For off-list discussions, feel you free to mail me.
Seams there are problems with http://jsbin.com. Testes and html goes away. Can you suggest any similar alternative service? On Aug 14, 12:47 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome, man. I'll take a look when I have time this weekend. > > You think you might be up for a collaborative effort and maybe > throwing some ideas back and forth? Most likely off-list. > > On Aug 14, 3:21 am, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @tres > > > You made me thinking about namespaces a lot today. > > I implemented a solution. > > >http://bender.fesb.hr/~robert/scripts/jquery.ns.js > > > Namespaces are not equal to modules. Inner namespaces can access to > > outer namespaces. > > 'That means that any namespace can directly do DOM stuff for > > example... > > > Here some testshttp://jsbin.com/oviri/edit. > > Please, feel free to do testing and writing more tests. > > > I made some tests on Firefox3.5, Chrome, Safari4, IE8. > > It would be great to test it on other platforms too... > > > I have no time to explain it in detail. Will find some time, I > > promise. > > > On Aug 13, 5:45 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "This discussion is about inheritance and not about namespacs" > > > > You are right. But when we talk about inheritance, we also have to > > > think about what is doing the inheriting. Which is why namespacing is > > > an issue. I hope I don't need to explain the caveats of a flat > > > namespace. Anyways take the following example: > > > > var plugin = function() {}; > > > plugin.prototype.alertHtml = function() { alert($(this).html(); }; > > > > $.fn.plugin = $.namespace(plugin); // call it $.inherit if you like > > > > // and if you have a base object as per Robert's plugin; you could > > > also include _super here and whatever else you want > > > $.extend($.fn.plugin.fn, $.base); > > > > $.namespace essentially creates a child object for jQuery. Just like > > > when you call jQuery(), it calls a separate function which > > > instantiates an object and converts 'this' to a jQuery array. $.extend > > > then inherits functions from a base object. I think that if your > > > $.plugin and my $.namespace were combined that we could get the best > > > of both worlds. > > > > "If you can not understand what a widget system would be, than I > > > suggest to look jQuery UI" > > > > Look, man, that really is unnecessary. I am sorry if I insulted you. > > > > On Aug 13, 12:24 pm, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Tres, I know that you are not insulting me purposely. > > > > Unfortunately that means that you really thinks that I have to learn > > > > about "private" and "namespaces" stuff. > > > > I am not sure why I give you the impression that I need to learn about > > > > basic JavaScriptng. Is the my bad english? > > > > > > Please, back to the actual topic... > > > > > This discussion is about inheritance and not about namespacs. > > > > > I mentioned my plugin authoring solution because it uses inheritance, > > > > and if something would benefits from inheritance it would be a plugin/ > > > > widget system to me. > > > > If you can not understand what a widget system would be, than I > > > > suggest to look jQuery UI > > > > > On Aug 13, 3:54 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Not at all. We are not here to flame or insult anyone. This is a > > > > > development group discussion. Yes, tempers and passion flare, and > > > > > sometimes things can be mistaken for arrogance, but I think that a lot > > > > > of people will be with me on that we are actually here to discuss the > > > > > future of jQuery rather than insult people. Insulting people isn't > > > > > worth my time or anyone else's and doesn't get anyone anywhere. > > > > > Although we all want to help and have a hand in jQuery, I think our > > > > > end result should be to further the development and future of the > > > > > library as a team, not individuals. Just because we aren't part of the > > > > > core team doesn't mean we aren't a team. > > > > > > Please, back to the actual topic... > > > > > > On Aug 13, 11:49 am, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > @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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
