> I'm having trouble seeing the advantage of adding static
> functions to jQuery as in:
>
> jQuery.log = {
> error : function() { ... },
> warning : function() { ... },
> debug : function() { ... },
> };
>
> as opposed to:
>
> function log() { ... }
> log.prototype.error = function() { ... }
> log.prototype.warning = function() { ... }
> log.prototype.debug = function() { ... }
>
> It seems the former opens up the door to unintended closures.
> What are the benefits of doing it this way as opposed to the
> traditional non-jQuery way?
I don't see any closures in that code. The jQuery.log = { ... } is not a
function and doesn't introduce a closure. This object literal is just a
handy way of creating some static functions.
IOW, these are identical:
jQuery.log = {
error : function() { ... },
warning : function() { ... },
debug : function() { ... },
};
jQuery.log = {};
jQuery.log.error = function() { ... };
jQuery.log.warning = function() { ... };
jQuery.log.debug = function() { ... };
Your code with the log.prototype stuff is something different entirely.
You're creating a log() constructor and giving it some methods. (BTW, by
convention, you would usually call it Log() instead of log() because it's
used as a constructor.) So you would need to do this to use it:
var log = new Log;
log.debug( ... );
The use of static functions avoids the need to construct an object. You can
merely use:
jQuery.log.debug( ... );
Not sure if I answered your question, but those are a few thoughts on it
anyway... :-)
-Mike
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
