On 2012-07-07 21:51 , David Karger wrote: > > On 7/7/2012 2:04 AM, Ryan Lee wrote: >> On 2012-07-06 09:52 , David Karger wrote: >>> On 7/6/2012 3:42 AM, Ryan Lee wrote: >>>> Hi Jed, >>>> >>>> On 2012-05-31 09:44 , jedavis13 wrote: >>>>> Hello, I am porting Exhibit 3 to an existing Drupal app and have some >>>>> questions as to the choice of using '$' instead of jQuery in the >>>>> bundled scripts. In order to get exhibit to work I had to manually >>>>> edit each script and replace $ with jQuery. There must be another way >>>>> around this yes? I tried writing a jQuery no-conflict script, but that >>>>> was not working. >>>>> >>>>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Currently it's working, >>>>> however I am not happy with having to modify the core. Here is a link >>>>> to the page if this helps, >>>>> http://kang.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/sb/jed/drupal7_lowernysphtc/dgcore/col-matrix >>>>> >>>>> >>> I'm afraid this is access-restricted >>>> Thanks for pointing this out. Exhibit has (in my usage) generally been >>>> the only thing going on in a page, and any other code would be >>>> concerned >>>> with modifying its behavior. Clearly that isn't the best assumption to >>>> be making. >>> Since we're working on at least 3 tools that combine exhibit with >>> something else, I agree. So far it hasn't been a problem because all >>> the tools we've used have made the same assumption that $=jQuery. >>> Jed, which particular tool have are you using that does not make this >>> assumption? >> jQuery is not unique in deploying that shorthand, for instance $ could = >> Prototype. >> >>>> I used $ because it made typing easier and lines shorter (nothing deep >>>> there). I'm familiar with the use of closures to $ within a restricted >>>> scope, as most jQuery plugins do, but with our code base spread out >>>> over >>>> a lot of files, I am loathe to go down that road. I suppose we could >>>> just make the switch to use "jQuery" instead, though if you know of any >>>> other way we can have our cake and eat it too - the simplicity of $ >>>> without causing conflicts - I'd be interested to hear it. I'll see >>>> what >>>> else I can find on the topic. >>>> >>>> If nothing else, we could make sure the compressed version of Exhibit >>>> substitutes all $ usage for jQuery. >>> Since we have already separate the creation of a "distribution" of >>> exhibit from the underlying codebase, we could in theory do the same for >>> the uncompressed version of exhibit, for example using using the closure >>> of $ you mention by programmatically wrapping every js file in >>> function($) { >>> the file >>> }(Exhibit.jQuery); >>> as we copy it to dist. >> On further consideration, I'm not a great fan of using the closure >> method. This makes debugging tricky; similar to how I wouldn't want to >> debug the compressed code bundle, I don't think I'd want the extra >> effort involved in debugging source subtly modified from the original. > I don't think the two points are comparable; debugging the compressed > code is a clear nightmare of meaningless names; wrapping our code in a > closure that define $ would have no impact on any definitions in our > code (or on the code we see) while we debug exhibit; it would just > protect our code from having its definitions changed when combined with > other code.
Can you explain why it's at all important to you to preserve a developer shorthand? I'm hearing a straw man made out of my comparison (which made no mention of degree of similarity), and that without even explaining why it's so important to you to preserve the current status quo or what's so odious to you about doing the simple thing and just using jQuery. What you proposed is an unstable hack. Do you test the pre- or post- wrapped code? Which line is the bug on - should I subtract two from each report or ask each reporter to subtract two? It's not a huge deal, to be sure, but that's what additional overhead you propose calls into existence. More importantly, does Exhibit work perfectly with file-limited scopes? It might not. Should every file get wrapped? It might not even need it. Will it work as expected when everything is concatenated and compressed? Either someone does the footwork to verify it all works out (and they might as well go ahead and modify every file instead of converting it every time) or I can do the extremely simple and very easy change from $ to jQuery. You can try to convince me this is at all important or worth discussing further, but by then I'll already have a changeset lined up to make the switch - because in far less time than this topic has inflated to inexplicably occupy, I'll have implemented the simple solution that Jed already kindly offered. > It also seems like utterly standard behavior in many other libraries, > e.g. the Aloha editor I'm working with at present. >> There's some collected wisdom here: >> >> http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries >> >> I'll want to check (or somebody else can check), but as Jed mentioned, I >> don't think having an ordered, late call to jQuery.noConflict() is an >> option. The most unambiguous solution is to do a global replace at a >> low level of $ with, say, a global e$ and set e$ = jQuery at the >> earliest point it comes into use, then broadcast the new convention to >> our developers. I do think we shouldn't be the ones calling noConflict; >> whether a user-developer wants $ for jQuery or something else should be >> their call, and Exhibit should avoid doing surprising things to the >> global context. >> >> Or we can just use jQuery. It's not that hard to type. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIMILE Widgets" group. To post to this group, send email to simile-widgets@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to simile-widgets+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/simile-widgets?hl=en.
