This is a compelling argument. I don't want to demean it by responding hastily and I don't have time today. I'm interested to know if there's anyone else on the mailing list that has an opinion here other than the three of us. Anyone else have any thoughts?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Sebastian Markbåge (via Nabble) < [email protected]<ml-user%[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm still not fully convinced that it should extend String. There are > a couple of issues I have with it... > > - Native APIs that require an Uri all make use of valueOf() and > therefore it is still possible to use an object for window.location = > uri; window.location.href = uri; aswell as XMLHTTPRequest. > - The only issue with not extending String is when you use the URI for > another API which expects a string. But that Uri should call valueOf() > or at least test typeof() and therefore it's a problem on that end and > not a problem in the URI object. That is why we have valueOf() isn't > it? > - typeof(...) and $type(...) will still NOT return 'string' and > therefore if another API uses typeof(...) checks or Array.link, it > won't work anyway. > - If, String is extended with methods with the same name as the ones > in URI. It can lead to confusion in classes that are expecting a > String with those extensions yet receives an object where those > methods have a different meaning. For example: 'Text'.parse(function) > vs. new Uri('http://www.mootools.net/').parse() for example. Possibly > an edge case but I'd still say it's an iffy architecture. > - Some of the verbs of String methods are dubious at best if you use > them in an Uri context. Such as: trim, clean, test, slice, toSource > (FF) etc... > > It's tempting to extend the natives but in an object-oriented sense, > an URI isn't really just a string. Just like a string isn't just an > array of characters. It's it's own type with it's own meaning. I think > it could get messy quite quickly if it's going to be extended. > > If a String is a must, I think it would be better to let those > features be pure extensions on String. For example: > var uri = 'http://www.mootools.net/example?test'; > uri.getUriQuery(); // returns '?test' > uri.getUriPart('hostname'); // returns 'www.mootools.net' > uri.toRelativeUri('http://www.mootools.net/'); // returns 'example? > test' > > But I think it would be best to have extendable URI objects and let > valueOf() do it's job. One could easily change them back and forth: > var uri = 'http://www.mootools.net'.asUri(); > uri.get('hostname'); // returns 'www.mootools.net' > uri.valueOf().substr(0, 21).getUriPart('hostname'); // returns > 'www.mootools.n' > > > ------------------------------ > View message @ http://n2.nabble.com/Uri-class-tp2456119p2458231.html > To start a new topic under MooTools Users, email > [email protected]<ml-node%[email protected]> > To unsubscribe from MooTools Users, click here< (link removed) >. > > > ----- The MooTools Tutorial: http://www.mootorial.com www.mootorial.com Clientcide: http://www.clientcide.com www.clientcide.com -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Uri-class-tp2456119p2458565.html Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
