I think the only common use for the returned data from event handlers
is the (get|set)Data events, which in my opinion, are already weird.
I think we should re-think some of these things.
As for hiding the new from $.Event... hm... I really disagree. I don't
see why we should conceal OO.
I understand that (because of chaining) $('foo') is nicer than new $('foo').
But not for the event object. It is an object and I see no need to
hide this. Just my opinion.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:46 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This looks good - just one point that I wanted to mention: We really
> need a way to still get at the return values of the triggered
> callbacks. I agree with your decision to move to using the W3C-style
> of return values. Perhaps we could use a property like .returnValue to
> maintain the last return value from the functions. Or even something
> like .returnValues.
>
> The reason why I bring this up is that it's becoming increasingly
> common for developers to use jQuery events as a way of doing custom
> events for communication and moving in this direction simply provides
> an extra level of indirection for them to dance through.
>
> Even with my proposal in order to get the previously-available return
> value a developer would have to do:
> var evt = new jQuery.Event("something");
> $(foo).trigger(evt);
> evt.returnValue
>
> Which is very clumsy. I might be ok with a new method - something akin
> to .triggerHandler but with the addition of returning the returnValue.
>
> Another point I want to mention: We're exposing jQuery.Event for
> developers to use but this is the first time that we've explicitly
> asked them to instantiate anything (new jQuery.Event). I'd like to
> request that the 'new' not be used - much in the same way that
> developers don't have to do 'new jQuery' (since we hide that away).
>
> --John
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else that "concretely" agrees or disagrees with any of the 2
>> mentioned tickets ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Ariel Flesler
>> http://flesler.blogspot.com
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2:44 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Addition:
>>>
>>> http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3665
>>>
>>> Feedback please.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> On Nov 29, 1:22 pm, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > @Scott
>>>
>>> > Ok, that's an easy change (leave it or remove it). The question is,
>>> > what's the formal application of this extra function ?
>>>
>>> > @Diego
>>>
>>> > We don't have the needed hacks to implement event capturing in IE (I
>>> > know your NWEvents does). We don't plan to add that I think, that
>>> > requires a lot of hacking and not many would benefit from it.
>>> > So why add that parameter to our method ?
>>>
>>> > I've been thinking about trying native event triggering instead of
>>> > what we have now. I showed that old experiment where I achieved native
>>> > event bubbling on all browsers, even for custom events. But that
>>> > required quite a large amount of code, maybe we can leave that as a
>>> > plugin.
>>>
>>> > About the event properties from the originalEvent... jQuery "claims"
>>> > it normalizes event objects in a cross browser way (some properties).
>>> > Telling the user "look for them on the original object" doesn't seem
>>> > too nice for me.
>>>
>>> > Thanks both for replying.
>>>
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Scott González
>>>
>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > jQuery UI uses the return value of triggerHandler, but we only care
>>> > > about false, so this change shouldn't affect us.
>>>
>>> > > What's the logic behind removing the event from the extra function?
>>> > > If I remember correctly, I talked to John about this a while ago and
>>> > > he couldn't think of any reason why that was done. I created a ticket
>>> > > to remove this behavior and it has just been sitting in Trac for 5
>>> > > months (http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3096).
>>>
>>> > > On Nov 28, 7:14 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > >> Feedback please! :)
>>>
>>> > >> I really like (and support) this feature.
>>>
>>> > >>http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3662
>>>
>>> > >> Also... I know that the returned value from jQuery.fn.trigger is used
>>> > >> here and there (jQuery UI?). But that behavior is really odd and
>>> > >> fragile in my opinion (false overrides any previous value).
>>>
>>> > >> I think it'd be nice to return true/false depending on whether
>>> > >> e.preventDefault() was called. This would be very useful for custom
>>> > >> events, to allow event handlers to stop a scheduled (custom) behavior.
>>>
>>> > >> As an alternative, we could add e.isDefaultPrevented() that retrieves
>>> > >> this value from the event object.
>>>
>>> > >> Note that none of this last 2 behaviors (or the one in the ticket) is
>>> > >> my invention.
>>> > >> I'm just imitating AS3's event system. I suppose that belongs to some
>>> > >> EcmaScript specification as well.
>>>
>>> > >>http://docs.brajeshwar.com/as3/flash/events/Event.html
>>>
>>> > >> Thanks
>>>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>
--
Ariel Flesler
http://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
