In short yes. That is why I opened a ticket with Wordpress to push towards compatibility mode with JQuery. I believe that this change will be adopted in the near future, once it does, you should not have an issue using Mootools.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Chris J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Including multiple libraries still isn't a sure bet that they'll work > together, even if they are prototype based and namespace based. For > example, there's a conflict with jQuery and an older Scriptaculous. > And wasn't there a conflict between MooTools and jQuery sometime back? > > I agree that one single library should be used, and I believe > Wordpress uses jQuery, but that doesn't stop plugin authors from > including their own libraries. And consider the situation in which I'm > creating a widget that people will include on their web pages. If I > use MooTools to build it, that prevents everyone already using > Prototype from using it and may cause unexpected conflicts down the > road with other libraries. > > MooTools is fine if I'm building something I have full control over, > but is it the best choice when building something I don't? > > On Oct 13, 10:00 am, Jan Kassens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, there are prototype based (in the sense that the native > > prototypes are altered, prototypejs and mootools as two examples) and > > non prototype based (for example: YUI, jQuery). > > > > The prototype approach yields to an easier to read api: [1, 2, 3].each > > vs. $([1, 2, 3]).each, but also makes the library incompatible with > > another library which also alters the native prototypes > > (Array.prototype.each in the above example. > > > > In short: you can normally include multiple non prototype based > > library, but only one prototype based. MooTools + jQuery + YUI for > > example would work, but MooTools + Prototype.js wont. > > > > IMO, one page should pick one single framework anyway and dont > > duplicate the file-size overhead, thats why i think the prototype way > > is the cleaner/better one for most purposes. > > > > Jan > > > > On Oct 13, 2008, at 15:27, Chris J wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the argument for not trying to make MooTools compatible > > > with other libraries and I agree with it. > > > > > My concern is when we as developers don't have any control over what > > > other scripts are included, like writing a plugin for Wordpress for > > > example. In situations like those, do I have to ditch MooTools for a > > > more third-party-friendly library? It's not reasonable to push the > > > compatibility problem onto the end-user. > > > > > What do you do? > > > > > I'm experimenting with adapters (similar to ExtJS) for other libraries > > > to maintain a consistent api across all of them. That way, if another > > > library is already included, I just include the adapter. I'm basing > > > the api heavily on MooTools since it's so awesome. > > > > -- > > my blog:http://blog.kassens.net >
