I really like the one-size fits all idea. At ~20k it's really not bad (even on high traffic sites). While I don't use all of jQuery's functions on a given project it's really nice to know what's available to me... without having to patch the base library.
It will be really tricky to write complex plug-ins for customized jQuery base packages. Plug-in writers will need to state overtly what $.x, $.y and $.z's are required for their plug-in to work. And I think between my custom code and my most favorite/used plug-ins (tabs, jqModal, etc) I would end up using most of the jQuery library anyhow. But then again, when I found jQuery I didn't think writing JavaScript could be made as easy / as fun as jQuery has made it. Perhaps John has some nifty idea to maintain jQuery's simplicity while allowing for customization/efficiency. :) Brian. On 3/23/07, Andy Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not as concerned with file size as I once was. ~20k is smaller than a single medium-sized JPG. Plus, once it gets cached, the file size is no longer an issue. I'm all for smaller file size, but I'd much rather see new development in speed or functionality than have you devs spend time building this packaging tool. andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of agent2026 Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:16 AM To: discuss@jquery.com Subject: Re: [jQuery] Jquery can learn from Mootools for distribution its code I tend to be in this camp as well. At 20k packed, I don't really see the point of breaking it all up. And with people's use of plugins, I'd be interested to see a breakdown of customized vs full package downloads. There's been much debate on this, but in the end I guess we must trust the devs for a solution most will be satisfied with. Adam Matt Kruse-2 wrote: > > The benefit of having a single (small) package is that the same > functionality is there all the time, every time. You don't have > different versions of js files on different pages and being cached > separately. You don't wonder why plugin X doesn't work, then realize > that you have package Y of jQuery instead of package Z. Instead of > plugins just requiring jQuery, they would require components A, B, and > C of jQuery. It just adds a whole level of confusion. > > Matt Kruse > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Jquery-can-learn-from-Mootools-for-distribution-its-co de-tf3449500.html#a9631954 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/ _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
_______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
