I'd like to second this opinion. I'm using livequery more and more,
but there are plenty of places where I DON'T use it, so not having it
in the core would still be my preference.
On Nov 1, 5:53 am, James Dempster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My less than one pence worth would be I love and use the plugin, but I
> don't think it should be included into jQuery core, I would
> like to see jQuery core stay light and fresh. There's nothing wrong
> with adding LiveQuery yourself, either just add another js file to
> your html or append all the plugins you want to the same js file.
>
> /James
>
> On Nov 1, 2:04 am, "Yehuda Katz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So as far as I'm concerned, livequery is the biggest advance in jQuery since
> > its inception (no, I am not its author). I'm trying to understand why it's
> > having such a slow rate of adoption.
>
> > it solves this problem:
> > $("div.klass").draggable();
> > $("#foo").load("url", function() { $("div.klass").draggable(); });
>
> > beautifully, as you now only need to do:
>
> > $("div.klass").livequery(function() { $(this).draggable() });
> > $("#foo").load("url");
>
> > Obviously, that was only a simple example. The more general case, wanting to
> > bind some event handler to a selector regardless of when it appears on the
> > page, is extremely common. So again, I'm trying to understand why the rate
> > of adoption has been so slow. Any thoughts?
>
> > --
> > Yehuda Katz
> > Web Developer | Procore Technologies
> > (ph) 718.877.1325
