When I made that post, I was very groggy, and realized I used a CSS
selector *, which well... is horrid slow, especially on IE. using
elem.descendants() instead would of made far more sense.
Also I would stay away from checking on the existing of
_prototypeEventID on the element. This is an internal prototype
property, which can change at any time. Relying on such a property
can be dangerous when you attempt to do an upgrade, even a small, bug
fix one. The stopObserving method, will check the internal prototype
registry for events, which is very fast, and recommended.
On Oct 2, 9:03 am, "Lea Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi puckpuck!,
>
> That's a really handy little snippet, so much simpler than manually
> enumerating nested HTML elements and stopping them individually (which
> I have previously done).
>
> If this functionality were to be bundled within the Prototype
> framework I personally think it would be better to offer an additional
> method (i.e. stopObservingNested or the like). Otherwise, the
> stopObserving method could cause undesirable effects, like if nested
> events are still wanted.
>
> Thanks!
> Lea Hayes
>
> 2008/10/2 puckpuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > This exact question was asked today at TAE.
>
> > At this time, no. stopObserving will not go through the children of
> > the container and remove events. In the future it is certainly
> > possible. Mind you it wouldn't be very difficult to write your own
> > method to recurse through all the children of a given element, and
> > call stopObserving on those children.
>
> > var elem = $("myElement");
> > elem.stopObserving()
> > elem.select("*").invoke("stopObserving");
>
> > On Oct 1, 11:02 am, "labs2.0" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi. Please, would you be kind to clearify this to me: if I call
> >> "Event.stopObserving(myWindow)", beeing 'myWindow' a div (ajax
> >> generated window wich can came and go as the user will), who doesnt
> >> have observers, but its a container (and parent) for many other
> >> elements (components) that may does, may doesn't have observers, will
> >> this call work recursivelly? If dont, why???
>
> >> Assuming it doesnt, and that prototype beautifully make things in a
> >> clean and natural way, should'nt we espect some behaviour like that? I
> >> mean, in a large framework, where I create a window with many comps,
> >> one could say that its my job to create a event garbage collector
> >> (which I did hacking prototype 1.5.0) to clean up things when, say, a
> >> window pops out, but then again, if I already have a nice way to setup
> >> events, its ask too much to have a nice one to get rid off of all of
> >> them too? :)
>
> >> In prototype 1.5.0 I've hacked a "Event.observeFor(container, element,
> >> event)" and a " Event.unloadContainer(container);" for memory sake.
>
> >> Am I missing something new (and cool) about Events here?
>
> >> Thank you and let me be +1 to say that prototype ROCKS!!
>
> >> []'s
> >> Labs
>
> >> On 10 set, 09:38, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Hi folks,
>
> >> > > try a look at the API
> >> > > documentation:http://www.prototypejs.org/api/event/stopObserving
> >> > > (you exactly do what is wrong !!)
>
> >> > Actually, David, what she's doing is just fine. She's using a
> >> > new(ish) feature of stopObserving which appears to be missing from the
> >> > docs. If you don't include a handler in the stopObserving call, ALL
> >> > events hooked up by observe() for the giveneventname on the given
> >> > element will be removed. This is quite handy. Even better, if you
> >> > leave off theeventname as well, stopObserving() will unhook all of
> >> > the handlers for that element [that were set up by observe()]
> >> > entirely.
>
> >> > So this would be wrong:
>
> >> > Event.observe(myelement, 'click',
> >> > this.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this));
> >> > ...
> >> > Event.stopObserving(myelement, 'click',
> >> > this.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this));
>
> >> > because the function arguments don't match.
>
> >> > But this is fine:
>
> >> > Event.observe(myelement, 'click',
> >> > this.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this));
> >> > ...
> >> > Event.stopObserving(myelement, 'click');
>
> >> > It removes *all* click handlers hooked using observe() from the
> >> > element.
>
> >> > And this is fine:
>
> >> > Event.observe(myelement, 'click',
> >> > this.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this));
> >> > ...
> >> > Event.stopObserving(myelement);
>
> >> > It removes *all* handlers for all events hooked using observe() from
> >> > the element. Great for when you're about to remove the element.
>
> >> > I'll see if there's a doc ticket in Lighthouse for this and add one if
> >> > there isn't.
> >> > --
> >> > T.J. Crowder
> >> > tj / crowder software / com
>
> >> > On Sep 10, 12:14 pm, david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > > Hi Lea,
>
> >> > > try a look at the API
> >> > > documentation:http://www.prototypejs.org/api/event/stopObserving
> >> > > (you exactly do what is wrong !!)
>
> >> > > Because you should do:
>
> >> > > myTestClass.myCallback=this.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this);
>
> >> > > myTestClass.prototype.initEvents = function()
> >> > > {
> >> > > var myDiv1 = $('exampleDiv1');
> >> > > myDiv1.observe('click',myTestClass.myCallback);
>
> >> > > }
>
> >> > > And to stopeventobserve:
>
> >> > > myTestClass.prototype.clearEvents = function()
> >> > > {
> >> > > var myDiv1 = $('exampleDiv1');
> >> > > myDiv1.stopObserving('click',myTestClass.myCallback);
>
> >> > > }
>
> >> > > But we are from the original question which is if we could
> >> > > stopObserving alleventfrom one element?
> >> > > The response is NO (otherwise, let me know, it save a lot of time and
> >> > > efforts sometime).
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > david
>
> >> > > On Sep 2, 8:41 pm, Kruncher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Hi,
>
> >> > > > I have just found out about the Prototype framework and am somewhat
> >> > > > impressed by how much simpler it makes things. I have found that
> >> > > > using
> >> > > > the observe and stopObserving functions has eliminated a pretty major
> >> > > >memoryleak within my scripts.
>
> >> > > > Below is a snippet of my code (which appears to function correctly
> >> > > > with Prototype 1.6), but I just wanted to confirm that this is in
> >> > > > fact
> >> > > > correct. From the user documentation it says that the stopObserving
> >> > > > method should be called in practically the same way as the observe
> >> > > > method. However, I want to make sure that ALL handlers are stopped
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > a particulareventof a particular element.
>
> >> > > > // Called when object is initialized.
> >> > > > myTestClass.prototype.initEvents = function()
> >> > > > {
> >> > > > var myDiv1 = $('exampleDiv1');
> >> > > > myDiv1.observe('click',
> >> > > > myTestClass.clickHandler.bindAsEventListener(this));}
>
> >> > > > // Called whenever an object is destroyed.
> >> > > > myTestClass.prototype.clearEvents = function()
> >> > > > {
> >> > > > var myDiv1 = $('exampleDiv1');
> >> > > > myDiv1.stopObserving('click'); // Is this line
> >> > > > acceptable
> >> > > > to stop ALL click events for myDiv1?
>
> >> > > > }
>
> >> > > > Many thanks,
> >> > > > Lea Hayes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
