On Nov 26, 10:27 pm, ajpiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> this is just a pattern i have developed for myself but if anyone has
> feedback on it please do share...
>
Can you show an example of how such a class would be used?
Im struggling to understand the benefit of it, although Im sure there
I've been writing a lot of jQuery plugins for internal use that use an
OO and prototypal approach. I have a basic class that i use for all
plugins that provides some basic methods (like storing the instance in
the .data() of the element and fires the internal methods of the
subclass, and then i a
I personally use the same approach in the Translate plugin (maybe I
should have told you that before :), but with that you don't need the
'new' keyword: $.translate() returns a new object (it's a bit similar
to $.ajax or jQuery itself, you don't need 'new' there either).
http://code.google.com/p/j
I've been thinking about this over the weekend and came up with a way to
write class-based plugins while still following the jQuery convention. Maybe
someone else has done this before but I couldn't find any documentation on
this subject.
The idea is to extend the base jQuery object with the javasc
Providing the method name as the first parameter is a bit awkward,
perhaps looking at the alternatives would help:
Add namespaces to jQuery. This isn't very jQuery-like. Example: $
(el).tabs.add(url, label).show();
Add a new jQuery method for every plugin instance method. This
pollutes the jQ
> To be honest, this seems a little awkward for me. This means I would have to
> write my plugin to check the first parameter to see if it's a string or an
> object, and if it's a string I then would have to make a switch to call the
> approriate method based on the string value.
You don't need a
6 matches
Mail list logo
