Well, actually, my managers are pushing for self-contained javascript
code (trying to get rid of all the library calls, which isn't
necessarily a good idea, but I have to abide).

So I ended up using a DOM-compliant version using createElement,
createTextNode and appendChild.

But I'll make sure to give that piece of code of yours a spin.

Thanks a lot.

On Apr 29, 3:16 pm, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just sort of curious ... of all the convenience that prototype offers,
> why is the only method you "need" is Element.update()?
>
> Anyway, try this...
>
> (function() {
>   function _$(args) {
>     this.elements = [];
>     for (var i = 0, len = args.length; i < len; ++i) {
>       if (typeof args[i] == 'string') {
>         this.elements.push( document.getElementById(args[i]) );
>       }
>     }
>   }
>   _$.prototype = {
>     update: function() {
>       this.elements[0].innerHTML = arguments[0];
>       return this;
>     }
>   };
>   window.$ = function() {
>     return new _$(arguments);
>   };
>
> })();
>
> And a fragment to drop into a body...
>
> <p id="p_content">
> This is some content that starts in a &lt;p&gt;
> </p>
> <div id="div_content">
> This is some content that starts in a &lt;div&gt;
> </div>
> <script>
> window.onload = function () {
>   $('p_content').update('test');
>   $('div_content').update('test');};
>
> </script>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Bertrand <bertrand.char...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That would indeed be another interesting way of doing it. The only
> > problem is that javascript is often used in environments where
> > filesize is critical. In my case, I only use ONE function from the
> > library, because I've found it to be th best way to achieve what I
> > want to do: Element.update.
>
> > But because I'm unable to sort the source code out, I have to either:
>
> > Ditch Prototype altogether (which I don't really want to do)
>
> > OR
>
> > Make use of the whole library, which is a no-go for me as the minified
> > +gzip version still weighs a solid 25kB (which isn't much, but still
> > way too much for our needs).
>
> > What bothers me here is the "one-size-fits-all" mentality, but
> > complaining about it sure is easy when I'm not providing any code to
> > fix the problem, I know it is, but still it bothers me that I'll have
> > to end up not using update (which is a fantastic piece of code, like
> > the rest of the library) just because it's so deeply intertwined with
> > the rest of the codebase.
>
> > What I was hinting at is something akin to what jqueryUI has on
> >http://jqueryui.com/downloadbut even more fine-grained (at function
> > level if possible).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to