You creative man...adding nice syntax and easy functionality to
animations. I will have to look to it deeper for hidden goodies.

As a side effect it will probably help users avoid leaks while coding
animations on their sites, and let them run longer on IE... :-).

Is this for 1.2.7 ?

--
Diego


On 24 Ott, 01:24, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks!!
>
> I created some more demos, I'm experimenting on different areas :)
>
> http://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/demos/fx.htmlhttp://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/demos/event.htmlhttp://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/demos/ajax.htmlhttp://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/demos/wait.html
>
> This is still work in progress.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jeffrey Kretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
>
> >  You are a SEXY BEAST!
>
> > I personally love that implementation.
>
> > And the syntax of "then" and "meanwhile" is very clear, with a separate
> > "wait" method for a delay.
>
> > JK
>
> > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> > Behalf Of *Ariel Flesler
> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:46 AM
> > *To:* [email protected]
>
> > *Subject:* [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> > Indeed. As I said, I got into making a plugin out of this.
> > I changed the semantics, added some features (more to come) and of course,
> > implemented it.
>
> > Here's a very simple demo.
> >http://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/
>
> > Cheers
>
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jeffrey Kretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree. But either way, is a wait() function technically feasible?
>
> > I tried hacking my way though it last night, and couldn't figure out the
> > implementation of code that would pause execution while a setInterval
> > function did it's work, and only THEN return the "this" jQuery object.
>
> > Does anyone know how to solve the technical hurdle here?
>
> > I guess you could call it "asynchronous setInterval"
>
> > JK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Bohdan Ganicky
> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:07 AM
> > To: jQuery Development
> > Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> > HI ricardobeat,
>
> > I don't think this is a good idea. Most of the time I expect
> > everything to happen as fast as possible. Waiting is mostly good for
> > animations only and even that's not always true. At least that's how I
> > feel it.
>
> > --
> > Bohdan
>
> > On Oct 23, 2:43 am, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's exactly what I said the day before, you pratically read my
> > > mind :]http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/#comment-321336
>
> > > What about making all methods 'wait' by default? That's what most
> > > people expect anyway, people new to jQuery only find out the
> > > animations run "in parallel" when they happen to casually chain
> > > something with it. Then you could pass a 'skip' argument if you wanted
> > > it to run immediatelly. Wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I wonder
> > > how many apps would break because of this, haven't seen anyone
> > > chaining animation methods.
>
> > > - ricardo
>
> > > On 20 out, 14:50, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > It seems that the tricky part is that the hide() function (as in all
> > > > animation functions) use a setInterval, but return the "this" object
> > > > immediately.
>
> > > > Ohhh.  I have an idea.
>
> > > > What if the wait() function set a flag in the object saying this object
> > is
> > > > waiting for an animation to finish.
>
> > > > Then, any subsequent jQuery.fn methods that are called get added to a
> > queue
> > > > to be executed after the animation is finished.
>
> > > > Once the animation is done, the wait flag is turned off and jQuery.fn
> > > > methods are executed immediately as usual.
>
> > > > So it would look like this:
>
> > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> > > >   .wait()
> > > >   .addClass("done")
> > > >   .find("span")
> > > >     .addClass("done")
> > > >   .end()
> > > >   .show("slow")
> > > >   .wait()
> > > >   .removeClass("done")
> > > >   .find("span")
> > > >     .removeClass("done");
>
> > > > JK
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
>
> > > > Behalf Of nikomomo
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 1:01 AM
> > > > To: jQuery Development
> > > > Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> > > > First, you can do that with the callback parameter.
>
> > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> > > >   .wait()
> > > >   .addClass("done")
> > > >   .find("span")
> > > >     .addClass("done")
> > > >   .end()
> > > >   .show("slow", function() {
> > > >     $(this).removeClass("done");
> > > >   })
>
> > > > But to create a wait() function, I think you have to create a lock/
> > > > semaphore (a simple counter), incremented in jQuery.anime (or anything
> > > > that create a timer callback?), decremented at the end of the anime,
> > > > and tested in the wait() function.
>
> > > > On 20 oct, 00:29, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > That's an interesting idea -- personally I like this syntax a lot.
>
> > > > > But because javascript isn't a true multithreading environment, I
> > wonder
> > > > if
> > > > > this would be possible at all.
>
> > > > > It's not like the wait() function can detect for the existence of an
> > > > > animation, pause execution until the animation is done, and only then
> > > > return
> > > > > the "this" object.
>
> > > > > Does anyone know if there's a way to create such behavior?
>
> > > > > JK
>
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
>
> > > > > Behalf Of xwisdom
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:43 PM
> > > > > To: jQuery Development
> > > > > Subject: [jquery-dev] RE: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> > > > > Sorry Guys but I could not find the thread mentioned on John's
> > > > > website:http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/
>
> > > > > Anyway, the chaining system looks ok but rather than using a chain()
> > > > > metod how about using a wait() method that would block or process
> > > > > succeeding calls after the preceding call has been completed:
>
> > > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> > > > >   .wait()
> > > > >   .addClass("done")
> > > > >   .find("span")
> > > > >     .addClass("done")
> > > > >   .end()
> > > > >   .show("slow")
> > > > >   .wait()
> > > > >   .removeClass("done")
>
> > > > > Just my 2cents
>
> > --
> > Ariel Flesler
> >http://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> --
> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to