On Dec 21, 4:06 pm, Micky Hulse <rgmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so how does this look:
>
> (function($) {
> $.fn.myFunction = function(id) {
> var $target = $('#' + id);
> if($target.length > 0) {
> return this.each(function() {
> // Do stuff here.
> });
> } // $target
> };
> })(jQuery);
>
> $('#div').myFunction('targ');
Looks right to me. One alternative, which wouldn't break the chain if
target is not supplied properly, would be this:
(function($) {
$.fn.myFunction = function(id) {
var $target = $('#' + id);
if ($target.length != 1) return this;
return this.each(function() {
// Do stuff here.
});
};
})(jQuery);
> My plugin will only be used on an #id, and the output will only
> manipulate a unique #id... In other words, there will only be one
> unique id in both cases. With that said, is it overkill to use
> "this.each()"? If so, what is the alternative syntax?
I don't think it's overkill for your initial jQuery object. I would
suggest that you don't do anything with .each for the target; I can't
see any reason for that. jQuery.each() doesn't add much overhead. If
you really wanted an alternative syntax, you might simply work with
this[0], assuming it exists. In jQuery, that will be the first
matched element.
But this leads to a more fundamental question, of why would this be a
plug-in if it only works on a single DOM element, presumably with an
id selector? Why not a plain JS function of the following form?:
function myFunction(source, target)
You could still use jQuery inside the function.
Perhaps it's just to learn jQuery plug-ins, and there's nothing wrong
with that. But if it doesn't work on multiple elements, should it
really be a plug-in? Food for thought, anyway.
Good luck,
-- Scott
