Tom, I realize anything using the prototype chain is doomed to this fate. While it would be next to impossible to create a compatibility mode between Mootools & Prototype it would however be theoretically possible to do so with a namespaced framework.
I guess I need to clarify my goals and expectations. I apologize for the title of the post, its has an element of sensationalism ;-) I never expected nor thought it was worth pursuing a compatibility level that would recreate another frameworks API with mootools. Nor was it my goal or focus to even worry or deal with other prototype based frameworks. My goal was to try and make Mootools peacefully coexist with other namespaced frameworks, particularly JQuery. I use Mootools on a daily basis and I am aware of all the complexities you pointed out. At the same time I have been required to be familiar with JQuery. I believe it was Jan that said earlier "that it is not an optimal solution to have two frameworks coexisting". The extra overhead, the duplication etc all take away the advantages. I do my absolute best to avoid even finding myself in a situation where this might happen. I also feel that if such a solution existed it should not be supported by Mootools as the levels of technical issues multiply. It is best to have someone leave and focus on a single framework. Rather then getting tied up in knots with two frameworks and javascript. So far I hope were on the same page ;-) I brought this up because I have had experience making JQuery and Mootools code running in the same page. Its not pretty but it is possible. I apologize for bring this into open discussion as it will only result in headaches. With the "holiday" I had too much time to ponder the post about Wordpress plugins using Mootools while facing the Jquery dependency. I love Mootools, I hate touching anything else and I thank you and the rest of the team daily as you make my day of coding that much easier and enjoyable. I will try and refrain from such radical hypothesis testing in the future. Nathan On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Iván N Paz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1 "?" wouldn't convey my concern/intrigue on this :-P > > > ps: @Iván, one question mark (?) is enough! >
