[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, expresso dschin...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's too hyped. Having calls to javascript in your elements defeats the purpose of unobtrusively maintaining and using libraries like jQuery. The mechanism frequently used to attach such listeners is to add a class, id, name or some other attribute value designed to make the element identifiable specifically to add a listener. How is: div class=mySpecialClass ... hugely different to: div onclick=mySpecialListener() ... when both attributes can be added using exactly the same server logic, static template or whatever? The only difference is that in the first case, the client must do extra work to attach listeners that could have been added on the server directly. Consider also that in the second case, you don't care about a document ready or load event, or whether the user must wait for elements to be enlivened while other content loads. Not hip, not cool or funky, but very robust and avoids a bunch of issues. Adding listeners at the client simply because the chosen development library supports it is not a particularly convincing argument. -- Rob
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
RobG wrote: On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, expressodschin...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's too hyped. Having calls to javascript in your elements defeats the purpose of unobtrusively maintaining and using libraries like jQuery. The mechanism frequently used to attach such listeners is to add a class, id, name or some other attribute value designed to make the element identifiable specifically to add a listener. How is: div class=mySpecialClass ... hugely different to: div onclick=mySpecialListener() ... when both attributes can be added using exactly the same server logic, static template or whatever? The only difference is that in the first case, the client must do extra work to attach listeners that could have been added on the server directly. Consider also that in the second case, you don't care about a document ready or load event, or whether the user must wait for elements to be enlivened while other content loads. Not hip, not cool or funky, but very robust and avoids a bunch of issues. Adding listeners at the client simply because the chosen development library supports it is not a particularly convincing argument. -- Rob For one, you're usually using that class to style something too (a class=required can be used for validation and for styling the input differently to show the user it's a required field), so you use essentially the same markup to hook in both your presentational layer and your behavioural layer. I've rarely used onclick after discovering the unobtrusive way of doing js, it's easier to maintain and your code looks cleaner. Jonathan -- Jonathan Vanherpe - Tallieu Tallieu NV - jonat...@tnt.be
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
Rob, keeping all JS outside of the HTML is a good practice, and keeps everything nice and easy to maintain. Jonathan Vanherpe (T T NV) wrote: RobG wrote: On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, expressodschin...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's too hyped. Having calls to javascript in your elements defeats the purpose of unobtrusively maintaining and using libraries like jQuery. The mechanism frequently used to attach such listeners is to add a class, id, name or some other attribute value designed to make the element identifiable specifically to add a listener. How is: div class=mySpecialClass ... hugely different to: div onclick=mySpecialListener() ... when both attributes can be added using exactly the same server logic, static template or whatever? The only difference is that in the first case, the client must do extra work to attach listeners that could have been added on the server directly. Consider also that in the second case, you don't care about a document ready or load event, or whether the user must wait for elements to be enlivened while other content loads. Not hip, not cool or funky, but very robust and avoids a bunch of issues. Adding listeners at the client simply because the chosen development library supports it is not a particularly convincing argument. -- Rob For one, you're usually using that class to style something too (a class=required can be used for validation and for styling the input differently to show the user it's a required field), so you use essentially the same markup to hook in both your presentational layer and your behavioural layer. I've rarely used onclick after discovering the unobtrusive way of doing js, it's easier to maintain and your code looks cleaner. Jonathan
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict dschin...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this would be contrary to the purpose of using jQuery I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. which means onclick would totally bind mark-up to javascript? In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. The concept of unobtrusive javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it solves. -- Rob
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
I don't think it's too hyped. Having calls to javascript in your elements defeats the purpose of unobtrusively maintaining and using libraries like jQuery. How can you stay that Rob?? On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG robg...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict dschin...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this would be contrary to the purpose of using jQuery I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. which means onclick would totally bind mark-up to javascript? In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. The concept of unobtrusive javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it solves. -- Rob
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
unobtrusive in this case is keeping javascript out of elements. onclick= binds them together. On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG robg...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict dschin...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this would be contrary to the purpose of using jQuery I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. which means onclick would totally bind mark-up to javascript? In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. The concept of unobtrusive javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it solves. -- Rob
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library obviously we're past that point. We've decided this was a good use for jQuery. So how can you say priorities are tangled here when you assume we're overthinking this because we're using a library. It sounds as though you're a bit anti-new, stay hard core javascript type of dude. If you're using javascript to make an entire application fine, but I'm in with the new and new to me makes sense. Unobtrusive is not overrated, it's good practice and it's a pattern as far as I'm concerned. On Oct 12, 10:35 pm, expresso dschin...@gmail.com wrote: unobtrusive in this case is keeping javascript out of elements. onclick= binds them together. On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG robg...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict dschin...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this would be contrary to the purpose of using jQuery I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. which means onclick would totally bind mark-up to javascript? In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. The concept of unobtrusive javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it solves. -- Rob
[jQuery] Re: Don't use onclick
The simple fact that you don't have javascript floating all over your doc inside elements is alone a reason that unobtrusive rocks. Let alone many other reasons. On Oct 12, 10:44 pm, expresso dschin...@gmail.com wrote: I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library obviously we're past that point. We've decided this was a good use for jQuery. So how can you say priorities are tangled here when you assume we're overthinking this because we're using a library. It sounds as though you're a bit anti-new, stay hard core javascript type of dude. If you're using javascript to make an entire application fine, but I'm in with the new and new to me makes sense. Unobtrusive is not overrated, it's good practice and it's a pattern as far as I'm concerned. On Oct 12, 10:35 pm, expresso dschin...@gmail.com wrote: unobtrusive in this case is keeping javascript out of elements. onclick= binds them together. On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG robg...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict dschin...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this would be contrary to the purpose of using jQuery I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. which means onclick would totally bind mark-up to javascript? In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. The concept of unobtrusive javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it solves. -- Rob
