[jquery-dev] Re: Add Cookie support

2009-08-23 Thread diogobaeder

Agreed. Dependency management can solve the problem of identifying the
correct API to use with plugins.

But, as for cookie management on the core, I still don't agree. It
will make the jQuery object grow in size, thus affecting performance,
and this functionality has nothing to do with anything else that
jQuery already has in its core - cookies management don't need DOM
manipulation or Ajax to work -.

My vote is still to have cookies outside of the core lib.

Regards,

Diogo



On Aug 22, 4:36 pm, ludovic ludothebe...@gmail.com wrote:
 This could be managed by a jquery-side dependencies management of
 labelized plugins.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



[jquery-dev] Re: Add Cookie support

2009-08-23 Thread Jörn Zaefferer

jQuery UI could be a better place for a cookie component, to live
along other utilities like Positon and Stackfix. Once it makes it into
a stable release, you could use the jQuery UI download builder to
configure your setup.

Jörn

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:34 PM, diogobaederdiogobae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Agreed. Dependency management can solve the problem of identifying the
 correct API to use with plugins.

 But, as for cookie management on the core, I still don't agree. It
 will make the jQuery object grow in size, thus affecting performance,
 and this functionality has nothing to do with anything else that
 jQuery already has in its core - cookies management don't need DOM
 manipulation or Ajax to work -.

 My vote is still to have cookies outside of the core lib.

 Regards,

 Diogo



 On Aug 22, 4:36 pm, ludovic ludothebe...@gmail.com wrote:
 This could be managed by a jquery-side dependencies management of
 labelized plugins.
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



[jquery-dev] Re: jQuery Dynamic Composition

2009-08-23 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
John you should start with Sizzle then, where the basic build will be
something like:

function Sizzle(selector, context){
return Array.prototype.slice.call((context ||
document).quertySelectorAll(selector));
};

Makes sense for every Sizzle based library, famous or home made one, no?

Regards

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Resig jere...@gmail.com wrote:


 Additionally, if there is an appreciable difference, it's likely that
 we would just change the logic in jQuery itself to only initialize the
 specific code branches once (which is something that we should be
 doing anyway).

 --John



 On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Dalmankevin.dal...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  For this idea to be taken seriously, I think you would need to create
  such a version and benchmark it VS the all-in-one jQuery.js. IF you
  can show significantl performance differences, then perpahs your idea
  could gain some traction (though I'm not in favor of it). But if we
  are only talking about *a few milliseconds* difference in normal use,
  then this would not justify the increased maintenance and code
  required at every level - development, testing, documentation, library
  linking, etc. IMO, the performance improvemetns would need to be
  significant and *noticeable* to justify all this extra work and
  complication. Making users add branching logic to every page is not a
  small matter.
 
  My 2-cents.
 
  /Kevin
 
  On Aug 21, 4:01 am, ludovic ludothebe...@gmail.com wrote:
  @DBj
 
  Not exactly.
 
  Before use, we generate a few browser-specific jquery files, like
  jquery.ie7.js, jquery.ie6.js. Theses files are generated server-side
  from the current jquery.js file from a support detection database. For
  example, for IE6, we already know that the box model isn't supported.
  So we replace all occurrences of if( jQuery.support.boxModel )
  { instruction a } else { instruction b } by instruction b.
 
  We still have a jQuery file like we have currently. It can work on a
  generic browser as the feature detection is made dynamically. It is a
  bit slower as there are more conditions. The file name is jquery.js.
  This file is downloaded only if there is no browser-specific jquery
  file.
 
  Now, when the page is loading, we can have two policices :
  - One based on user agent : if it is a user agent corresponding to one
  of our precomputed files, we download the precomputed one, and not
  jquery.js. Else, we download the generic file, I mean jquery.js
 
  - Another one based on client-side detection, with for example
  !--[if lt IE 7]
  !-- Internet Explorer before IE7 --
  script src=jquery.2.ie_before_7.js /script
  ![endif]--
 
  So, what I propose is what you called the ultimate solution and my
  precedent message explained how I would generate the different files.
 
  Regards,
  Ludovic
  
 

 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---