Maybe I just like JavaScript but I'd prefer to just pass
an anonymous function to do what I need within an event handler. Often times
my event handlers aren't that simple. I can understand queuing chained fx
methods but this just feels wrong. I'll admit though it is sexy at first and
an interesting experiment. However, once I start thinking about what my
existing code would look like in this syntax... it isn't so sexy anymore. We
would have to start re-creating the core language constructs in our DSL and
I think JavaScript does a fine job.
--
Brandon Aaron
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What do you think of the events part ?
>
> $('div')
> .when('click')
> .addClass('active')
> .text('Hey')
> .done()
> // Also possible with on()
> .on('mouseout')
> .removeClass('active')
> .text('Ho')
> .done();
>
> At first event handler would only run once, now I improved that. It
> could also be possible to avoid the use of .done() for successive
> events. Assuming that you're not going to bind events inside an event
> handler, but I'm not sure that applies to all cases.
>
>
> --
> Ariel Flesler
> http://flesler.blogspot.com/
>
> On Oct 23, 9:24 pm, "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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
