> First, I don't see how just splitting things up into optional plug-
> ins really helps the problem. At most, it means that in some rare
> cases, collision will be less frequent. But the majority of people
> will not want to use jQuery without dom attributes or events. It can
> also result in the ugly situation where, if you decide you need a new
> plug-in halfway, you might break existing code because suddenly the
> meaning of a method changes.
There are two issues at play here:
1) The collision of method names.
2) The sheer number of methods attached to the jQuery object.
#1 will only be solved through a change in the name of the methods
(for example, from .load() to .onload() or .event.load()).
#2 can only be solved by breaking up the bulk of functions into
multiple plugins. For example, simply breaking off the events plugin
from core will release 100 method names. Additionally, none of these
plugin's method names would conflict with each other - they'd be
entirely separate. (This would be taken care of ahead of time by #1)
Additionally, it would probably be required that plugin authors only
reference functionality in the jQuery core (using .css('height')
instead of .height()) that way their plugin would work with any set of
plugins built in.
--John
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
