There's nothing special about chaining methods. You can do it in most
decent languages (in PHP, you could design methods to allow something
like: $toys->addNew("Block")->delete();) and all it involves is
returning an instance of the current object. It's not a performance
hit by any means.
A chainable method, in jQuery, is written:
$.fn.newMethod = function() {
// Function body...
return $(this);
}
As you can see, all that's happening is "this" is being converted to a
jQuery object (defined by jQuery and its alias "$") and returned.
Thomas
On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, MorningZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I can see it saving time as there is less
> code to write; but on the flip side, I can see how it can becomes
> harder to manage especially if there is an excess amount chaining
> going on"
>
> That's your decision to make, and you can have the choice to do it one
> way or the other
>
> One advantage to doing this
>
> $("#Results").html("Some Text").show();
>
> over this
>
> $("#Results").html("Some Text");
> $("#Results").show();
>
> would be that the script doesn't have to retrieve that wrapped set a
> second time
>
> On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, SLR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm new to jQuery and I'm trying to learn some more about jQuery's
> > chaining feature. Chaining methods seems to be one of jQuery's best
> > features (at least this is how I see it described all over over the
> > web).
>
> > From a developer standpoint, I can see it saving time as there is less
> > code to write; but on the flip side, I can see how it can becomes
> > harder to manage especially if there is an excess amount chaining
> > going on.
>
> > Also, how does this affect performance? Does chaining use more, less,
> > or the same amount of resources?
>
>
