Yeah, I meant that it would clean the global namespace, but wouldn't clean
the Native extensions. This would make MooTools play nice with jQuery,
Yahoo, and Dojo, but not Prototype.
Again:
1) Blah blah bad idea, you shouldn't use two frameworks
2) But totally doable
You're right about the code example below of course; much cleaner.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:33 AM, tomocchino <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> it would be done like this...
>
> var MT = (function(){ // all of MooTools
> // return some object containing MooTools functionality
> })();
>
> This is basically what Yahoo does everywhere, and the whole premise behind
> jQuery, a single object in the global namespace. Again though, that "all of
> MooTools" line wont exactly work, because we use our global collections and
> native prototypes throughout. Anywhere you see a MooTools method on an
> Array, String, Number, etc would have to be changed to use generic functions
> instead, so this kind of defeats the purpose of an Object-oriented coding
> style...
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, nutron wrote:
>
> 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]<http://n2.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1331764&i=0>
> > 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!
>>>
>>
>>
> The MooTools Tutorial: www.mootorial.com CNET Clientside:
> clientside.cnet.com
>
> ------------------------------
> View this message in context: Re: Mootools compatibility
> mode<http://n2.nabble.com/Mootools-compatibility-mode-tp1330747p1331764.html>
> Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list
> archive<http://n2.nabble.com/MooTools-Users-f660466.html>at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> View message @
> http://n2.nabble.com/Mootools-compatibility-mode-tp1330747p1332527.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-tp1330747p1333035.html
Sent from the MooTools Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
