Xavier MONTILLET wrote:
> Xavier MONTILLET wrote:
>> Here is the code on Github:
>> https://github.com/xavierm02/XJSAccessors/blob/master/XJSAccessors.js
> And here is a usecase:
> https://github.com/xavierm02/XJSAccessors/blob/master/XJSSelection.js
Maybe I'm simply missing the point, but I'm not convinced. It seems
to me that you are using XJSAccessors in order to help build this API
for XJSSelection:
Chrome:
=======
var x = new XJSSelection();
x.get('selection'); // DOMSelection {...}
x.get('range', 0); // XJSRange {...}
x.get('range', 0).get('range'); // Range {...}
x.get('rangeCount'); // 1
FF:
===
var x = new XJSSelection();
x.get('selection'); // Selection {...}
x.get('range', 0); // Error (no support for rangeCount)
x.get('rangeCount'); // Error (no support for rangeCount)
But that API seems much more complicated than this:
Chrome:
=======
var x = new XJSSelection();
x.getSelection(); // DOMSelection {...}
x.getRange(0); // Range {...}
x.getRangeCount(); // 1
FF:
===
var x = new XJSSelection();
x.getSelection(); // Selection {...}
x.getRange(0); // Error (no support for rangeCount)
x.getRangeCount(); // Error (no support for rangeCount)
And the code that uses these accessors is more complicated than the
code that doesn't use them, at least in my simple-minded test:
Original: http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Test/2011-08-30a/
Reworked: http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Test/2011-08-30c/
In either of these, you can load the page, select a range, and enter
`test()` in the console.
The reworked version seems to provide the same facilities without
exposing any unwanted implementation details, using shorter, cleaner
code. That's why I haven't yet seen the benefits of your accessors.
What am I missing?
-- Scott
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
