Thanks, that is how I write my classes also, I was just shortening for
example purposes.
I appreciate the time you took to answer so thoroughly.
Mike
On Oct 7, 6:30 pm, nutron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either works, but I find the latter to be cleaner. Also, this is not valid
> syntax:
> this.items[] = item;
>
> You'd have to do
>
> this.items.push(item);
>
> For what it's worth, I try to limit the amount of functionality in my
> initialize methods (and, indeed, all my methods). I like my methods to very,
> very simple things. initialize is, for me, about storing the initial state.
> Anything that ads or alters anything I put in a method.
>
> So, let's say I had a slideshow, I would do this:
>
> var SlideShow = new Class({
> Implements: Options,
> options: {
> slides: []},
>
> initialize: function(options){
> this.setOptions(options);
> this.addSlides(this.options.slides);},
>
> slides: [],
> addSlides: function(slides){
> $$(slides).each(this.addSlide.bind(this));},
>
> addSlide: function(slide){
> this.slides.include($(slide)); //don't allow duplicates
>
> }
> });
>
> The interesting things:
>
> 1) my initialize method allows for the possibility that the class will be
> initialized without any slides. this means that the slides passed into the
> class are options (if my class *had* to have slides on initialize, I'd make
> slides an argument).
> 2) my initialize method sets options and then calls other methods to do
> things with those options (and also, if there were any, other arguments).
> 3) I have methods to process these values, which allows me to process them
> later if I need to, or to process more.
> 4) Whenever I have a method that does something like "processThingies" I'll
> usually also write a "processThingy" method, too. You could really do it
> either way. You cold have all your logic in either method and just pass
> arguments to whichever one contains your logic (i.e. processThingy can just
> push a single item wrapped in an array to processThingies, or the other way
> around). This is really just to make the interface nicer.
> 5) I like to extend my classes, so whenever possible I like granular methods
> so I can later do something like this:
>
> var ImgSlideShow = new Class({
> Extends: SlideShow,
> options: {
> imgUrls: []},
>
> initialize: function(options){
> this.parent(options);
> this.options.imgUrls.each(this.addImg.bind(this));},
>
> addImg: function(url){
> this.addSlide(new Element('img', {src: url}));
>
> }
> });
>
> By having all my logic in granular methods I can insert new logic pretty
> much anywhere.
>
> You might find this useful:
>
> http://www.mootorial.com/wiki/mootorial/09-howtowriteamootoolsclass
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Michael Duff <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > so nutron,
>
> > is it better to do
>
> > $$('.someclass').each(function(item, index) {
> > this.items[] = item;
> > //other stuff with item....
> > });
>
> > OR
>
> > this.items = $$('.someclass');
>
> > this.items.each(function(item,index) {
> > //some stuff here
> > });
>
> > *this only applies to the first time I will be accessing these items,
> > any other time I would access this.items*
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Oct 7, 5:17 pm, nutron <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304959&i=0>>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I disagree. Calling $$ twice on the same selector is not very efficient.
> > > Whenever possible, only call $$ once. $ is much less forgiving on speed.
> > > Calling either $$ or $ on a collection of elements or a single element
> > > (respectively) has no cost. So:
> > > var el = $(id);
> > > $(el).whatever() //no expense
> > > $(id); //cheaper than the first time and but slightly more costly
>
> > > var els = $$(selector);
> > > $$(els).whatever() //no expense
> > > $$(selector); //nearly as expensive as the first time
>
> > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Nathan White <
> > > [EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304959&i=1>
> > <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304959&i=2>>
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Your code snippet is the best approach.
>
> > > > Mootools is fast at retrieving elements that have already been
> > 'touched'.
> > > > The biggest culprit in performance is the DOM traversal.
>
> > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Michael Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
> >http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304791&i=0>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> Hey Everyone,
>
> > > >> I have a question about coding style, I will be using the same "items"
>
> > > >> over and over throughout a class I am writing, so would it be better
> > > >> to place these items in an array for later use?
>
> > > >> $$('.someclass').each(function(item, index) {
> > > >> this.items[] = item;
> > > >> });
>
> > > >> then anytime I need to loop through them I can just use this.items
> > > >> instead of $$, does anyone know if its more expensive to store
> > > >> references to those items or for mootools to go find them each time?
>
> > > >> Mike
>
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > View message @
> > > >http://n2.nabble.com/cheaper-to-use-array-or-%24%24%28%29-tp1304776p1...
>
> > > > To start a new topic under MooTools Users, email
> > > > [EMAIL
> > > > PROTECTED]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304959&i=3>
> > <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1304959&i=4>>
>
> > > > To unsubscribe from MooTools Users, click here< (link removed) >.
>
> > > -----
> > > The MooTools Tutorial: http://www.mootorial.comwww.mootorial.com
> > > CNET Clientside: http://clientside.cnet.comclientside.cnet.com
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> >http://n2.nabble.com/cheaper-to-use-array-or-%24%24%28%29-tp1304776p1...
> > > Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> > ------------------------------
> > View message @
> >http://n2.nabble.com/cheaper-to-use-array-or-%24%24%28%29-tp1304776p1...
> > To start a new topic under MooTools Users, email
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To unsubscribe from MooTools Users, click here< (link removed) >.
>
> -----
> The MooTools Tutorial: http://www.mootorial.comwww.mootorial.com
> CNET Clientside: http://clientside.cnet.comclientside.cnet.com
> --
> View this message in
> context:http://n2.nabble.com/cheaper-to-use-array-or-%24%24%28%29-tp1304776p1...
> Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
