My 2 cents here:
1) Everything Tom said and everything Nate said, I agree with. You shouldn't
run two frameworks. MooTools isn't trying to be compatible. Yada yada.
Prototype frameworks can't play nice no matter what, etc.
2) That said, academically I think there's an easy way to do this: closure.
(function(){
//ALL OF MOOTOOLS
//ALL YOUR CODE
})();
It's not the same thing as having a version of MooTools that plays nice, but
it would work.
You could allow methods to "escape" the closure, but this would be more
tricky:
var MT = {};
(function(){
//ALL OF MOOTOOLS
MT.$ = $;
MT.$type = $type;
MT.Drag = Drag;
etc.
})();
MT.$('foo');
Yes, methods like $ need $type, but those are available to $ via closure.
This would work, no?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:36 PM, nwhite <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 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]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1331579&i=0>
> > wrote:
>
>> 1 "?" wouldn't convey my concern/intrigue on this :-P
>>
>> > ps: @Iván, one question mark (?) is enough!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> View message @
> http://n2.nabble.com/Mootools-compatibility-mode-tp1330747p1331579.html
> 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.com www.mootorial.com
CNET Clientside: http://clientside.cnet.com clientside.cnet.com
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/Mootools-compatibility-mode-tp1330747p1331764.html
Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
