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 <[email protected]> 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 <p> > </p> > <div id="div_content"> > This is some content that starts in a <div> > </div> > <script> > window.onload = function () { > $('p_content').update('test'); > $('div_content').update('test');}; > > </script> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Bertrand <[email protected]> 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 [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-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
