My driving reason is to let jquery developers use unittest for their
unit tests as I like it a lot as a test suite. Without noConflict, the
jquery app will need to use its noConflict setup, rather than
Prototype using its noConflict setup.

Fixing prototypes "critical" namespacing conflicts - the $() - method
seemed a solid, clean approach.

On Jan 31, 2:12 am, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there's more elegant ways to handle that than converting each
> and every call to a global than the one you're using.
>
> Using a closure could be a solution.
>
> Dean's got an interesting system in base2 for that kind of 
> stuff:http://base2.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/base2/Package.js
>
> Personally, I'm not too fond of namespacing, as imho it just
> encourages poor coding practices. There's technically no reason afaik
> (except laziness maybe) to include another framework on top of
> Prototype (and yes, I know Digg does so - shame on them !).
>
> But I'm ready to hear any sound argument in that direction.
>
> Best,
>
> Tobie
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to