-1 for identify (we're not talking about the act of identifying something, but generating a unique id) -1 for making it an instance method on elements (see my last post for reason) +1 for getId +1 for static method only (Element#getId)
Actually, this should really be so general as to not even be specific to Element(s)... just a good old general purpose method will do. +1 for pulling out to a general level and of course, +1 for allowing the dev to supply the prefix ... +100 for whatever you decide to actually implement, because you're the one doing the work :-) On 7/18/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Don't know what's up with the google groups today... I posted an > earlier message which hasn't appeared anywhere yet. > > Anyway, this is just to advise you that I posted a patch: > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9012 > > I went with "identify" as a method name as I thought it's definition > (establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is) nicely > fit what the method does and clearly refers to the id attribute. > Obviously, that's still still open for discussion. > > Also, I didn't implement the scoping some of you suggested, but if > there's a real use case for it, implementing it is trivial, so please > speak up. > > Regards, > > Tobie > > > > > On Jul 18, 10:57 am, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tobie Langel wrote: > > > ... > > > I'm also concerned about naming the method adequately. Sam suggested > > > Element#denominate which looks nicer than (generate|assign)Id but > > > which I fear could be confused with setting the "name" attribute. The > > > only other option I came up with is Element#identify. Thoughts on this > > > issue ? > > > > > Also, I'm wondering whether the method should return the element - for > > > chaining purposes and to follow the general pattern of the other DOM > > > methods - or the generated id itself, which IMHO would proove more > > > useful here. Again, what are your thoughts ? > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input, > > > > > Tobie > > > > The function seems more useful if it returns the id. I'd vote for the > > name Element#getId(). Then you can call the function and always get an > > id back regardless of whether the element has an id already. I like > > Jeff Watkin's exact implementation. I think that the namespacing idea > > is interesting but an edge case--creating groups of elements is as easy > > as creating a hash: > > > > {"group1": [el1, el2, el3], "group2": [el4, el5, el6]} > > > > - Ken > > > > > -- Ryan Gahl Manager, Senior Software Engineer Nth Penguin, LLC http://www.nthpenguin.com -- Architect WebWidgetry.com / MashupStudio.com Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform -- Inquire: 1-262-951-6727 Blog: http://www.someElement.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
