kangax wrote:
> ...
> Ken,
>
> I wanted to keep $W consistent with the rest of the library - be a
> simple shortcut for creating a new instance of NodeWrapper. Just like `
> $H` returns `new Hash` and $R returns `new ObjectRange`, $W should
> probably return `new NodeWrapper`. $W is also responsible for
> "transforming" string parameter into an actual element (via
> `document.getElementById`):
>
> ...
> this.$W = function(element) {
> if (typeof element == 'string') {
> element = document.getElementById(element);
> }
> return new Prototype.Node(element);
> };
> ...
>
> Using such "proxy" helper ($W) also ensures NodeWrapper is always
> called as a constructor. There are less chances that a user will
> mistakenly call `NodeWrapper` as a function and pollute the global
> scope. It, therefore, allows us to get rid of "this instanceof
> Prototype.Node" check:
>
> new Prototype.Node('foo'); // returns a wrapper
> Prototype.Node('foo'); // boom! returns undefined and creates a global
> `source`/`raw` property
>
That makes sense. I was just thinking where it might be confusing that:
$W('foo') instanceof Prototype.Node; // true
but seeing it written out like that does make sense.
> Good point about passing a wrapper into a wrapper : ) Would it make
> sense to return a wrapper itself or a "clone" of it? Would there ever
> be a need for a cloned wrapper?
>
The only case I can think of is when there is an item in memory with the
same id as one on the page. I don't know how we would handle that case.
Maybe the caching system could handle that somehow.
> As far as caching, I'm afraid that storing reference to a wrapper on a
> node itself could lead to circular references (which as we know "leak"
> in IE's JScript). Having a separate cache-table and map elements to
> wrappers by an element's id (or a custom property of an element) seems
> more appropriate.
>
What about this caching idea: http://gist.github.com/6609
> I also think that #update, #insert, #replace, etc. should allow to
> accept a wrapper (besides an element or a string):
>
> $W('foo').insert($W('bar'));
>
> This should be as easy as giving wrapper `toElement`/`toHTML` methods
> (since `update`/`insert` delegate to those when available)
>
Definitely.
> --
> kangax
Ken Snyder
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
