I've been thinking about building special versions of jQuery for a while as well. I'm not sure if building a browser or feature specific version is feasible, but it might be an interesting experiment. Recently I have been working on a few projects that target a specific browser, and it would be interesting to see if there is any advantage to using a version specifically built for that browser (or a group of browsers.) My main interest at the moment is however in creating a version that is safe to use with code that extends the native Object prototype. To that end I've forked the Sizzle code and added preprocessor statements for conditional "compilation". My next step would be to do the same for jQuery. Perhaps such an approach would also work here (i.e. building special version from the original source.)
My Sizzle fork can be found here: http://github.com/bramstein/sizzle/tree/master http://groups.google.com/group/sizzlejs/browse_thread/thread/cb9597d0d19e13ab Bram On Aug 25, 1:00 am, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am trying deliberately to stay "abstract" in order not to appear to > be giving advices to the team how to do their job. I think they are > qualified enough. > > I would rather stay in the realm of "why". Ie "why" something would be > a "good thing" for jQuery. > And this idea of not having one jQuery file where everything is mixed- > in for all browsers, I think might be a good thing indeed, for jQuery. > > @Andrea : Sizzle is the good candidate. (its makeArray() mehod, for > example, is particularly good example) > > -- DBJ > > On Aug 24, 5:04 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Have you seen sizzle? The main core component that could make the difference > > since jQuery is mainly based on selectors and arrays manipulation? Try to > > imagine sizzle was called jQuery.core.selector, I think makes sense to start > > from the main dependency that could bring benefits for everyone, even non > > jQuery users. But this is just my opinion. > > > On Aug 24, 2009 4:33 PM, "DBJDBJ" <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I thought my original aim was simple ? > > I just thought it might be proven feasible to have one jQuery for IE, > > and one jQuery for others ... > > > The team is building jQuery already, using tools , so (I thought) the > > same tools might be used to build these non-ie and ie versions, also. > > And then tests can be done , using the same testing > > infrastructure ... > > > This is of-course not an "zero effort" excersize, but I think we all > > agree that the non-ie version will be measurably faster on on non-ie > > browsers than the original "mix-in-everything" version. And the same > > will happen with ie-only version on ie browsers. > > > --DBJ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this > > message because you are subs... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
