Why would it not be that good .... Insert takes 2 arguments and 1 of those 
arguments has 4 possibilities....

 -> Following is prototypes version of it. and if you know that you are 
always going to give it VALID HTML then you can strip alot of it out
insert: function(element, insertions) {
    element = $(element);

    if (Object.isString(insertions) || Object.isNumber(insertions) ||
        Object.isElement(insertions) || (insertions && (insertions.toElement 
|| insertions.toHTML)))
          insertions = {bottom:insertions};

    var content, insert, tagName, childNodes;

    for (var position in insertions) {
      content  = insertions[position];
      position = position.toLowerCase();
      insert = Element._insertionTranslations[position];

      if (content && content.toElement) content = content.toElement();
      if (Object.isElement(content)) {
        insert(element, content);

      content = Object.toHTML(content);

      tagName = ((position == 'before' || position == 'after')
        ? element.parentNode : element).tagName.toUpperCase();

      childNodes = Element._getContentFromAnonymousElement(tagName, 

      if (position == 'top' || position == 'after') childNodes.reverse();


    return element;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bertrand" <bertrand.char...@gmail.com>
To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:54 PM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Extracting methods from codebase

Because there's a reason why Prototype, jQuery and the likes have such
success. It lies in the fact that the developers are very talented and
provide good code. Unfortunately, I'm kind of new to the whole
javascript scene and I don't know how to handle all the cross-browser
oddities, the corner cases, etc.

So yeah sure I theoretically *could* code an update function. But now
would it be that good? Don't think so...

Also why reinvent the wheel when there are libraries around?

On Apr 30, 8:48 am, "Alex McAuley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com>
> why cant you code your own insert function.... its not that hard ...
> You can probably do it in about 15 lines or so..
> Alex
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bertrand" <bertrand.char...@gmail.com>
> To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" 
> <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:47 PM
> Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Extracting methods from codebase
> Hi Walter,
> > There was a project getting started late last year called pulpjs that
> > was aiming at this problem. It's sort of a port of Prototype with the
> > following goals: no global namespace pollution, no extensions of
> > native prototypes, and everything is modular and non-dependent. Have a
> > look at their download builder for a hint of what I
> > mean:http://pulpjs.org/downloads/
> This is exactly what I wanted. Unfortunately I trust Prototype's
> "namebrand" and the quality it provides me. I wish that Prototype
> developers will be headed that way in the future, that would
> definitely provide coders much-needed flexibility. Cause really it
> pains me to have to drop Prototype every time because I can't for the
> life of me get it trimmed down under 20kB.
> Thanks a lot for the link anyway.
> > Note that this is Prototype-like, but not a drop-in replacement.
> > Walter
> > On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Bertrand 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.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to