On 3/8/08, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > Does anyone else find it obvious that we need an *official* set of > extensions? There are many things we simply can't put into a core. > That doesn't mean we can't release an official extension with unit > tests, versioned in a trunk. Even small things like mouse:wheel could > make a huge difference. > > Best, > kangax
Right on point. I absolutely love scripteka and am very grateful about all your gracious hard work there! It is an excellent forum for sharing code and finding helpful and exciting scripts. It really doesn't bother me that most scripts there do not have unit tests; as has been mentioned recently in the Prototype vs. jQuery discussion, Prototype's is more of build-an-application library than download-a-mismash-of-widgets library. So I'm not disappointed if a scripteka script doesn't work 100% because I'm not building a site with a bunch of widgets, I'm building an application. Like you say, it would make a big difference to add extensions to the official svn repository. I envision two types of scripts that could be included as "official" extensions: 1) those that barely missed the cut to get into core (e.g. mouse:wheel/enter/leave) and 2) those found in other popular js libraries that are outside Prototype's scope (e.g. date functions, browser version detection, hover/toggle helpers, ajax history management etc.). Thanks! Ken --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
