Thanks I'll have a look at that. /Andreas
On 17 Nov, 15:57, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It sounds like Ariel's Modularize plugin might be up your > alley:http://flesler.blogspot.com/2008/04/jquerymodularize.html > > --John > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:09 PM, andkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm developing this plugin where to get the functionality I want, I > > would have to pollute the jQuery prototype a lot. This made me think > > of an approach where I derive a new class using $.fn as prototype. > > Then I could use one "entry method" which returns instances of my > > subclass. However this doesn't work because jQuery methods rely > > heavily on the jQuery( elems ) construct which breaks out of my > > subclassed chain. This could be remedied by making jQuery methods > > dynamically load jQuery i.e. this.jQuery which then could be > > overridden. Does that sound doable? > > > One can argue the approach is flawed because a jQuery chain can easily > > transform itself to include elements from outside the original set, > > where the additions/modifications of the subclass won't make any > > sense. However that could be solved by dividing the jQuery methods > > over two classes in a hierarchy. All methods that can't widen the set > > go into the base class, and the rest into a subclass. Then you can > > extend the base class in a more sensible way. Maybe ripping jQuery in > > two sounds a bit harsh… > > > /Andreas Karlsson, Stockholm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
