[Prototype-core] Re: Function.EMPTY and Function.K
2009/9/29 Joran Greef jorangr...@gmail.com: Prototype's existing String.empty and Array.empty interfaces would imply that Function.empty return a boolean indicating perhaps that the function is empty. Numpty brain this morning, but ... As I understand things, K(x) = x, not K(x) = (fn() = x) -- - Richard Quadling Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants! EE : http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_248814.html Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498r=213474731 ZOPA : http://uk.zopa.com/member/RQuadling --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Function.EMPTY and Function.K
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 06:49:15 Joran Greef wrote:
Prototype's existing String.empty and Array.empty interfaces would
imply that Function.empty return a boolean indicating perhaps that the
function is empty.
Well, it *could* do:
Function.empty = function(){};
Function.empty.empty = function(){return true};
Of course this doesn't cover other empty functions and I may be not entirely
serious ;-)
Jim
--
Jim
my wiki ajaxification thing: http://wikizzle.org
my blog: http://jimhigson.blogspot.com/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Ajax.Responders.register for onFailure event
2009/9/28 Mona Remlawi mona.reml...@gmail.com: i knew it, i had asked the same question before [10/29/08] so i'll stick to the same recommended patch at [http://prototype.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8886/tickets/334-onsuccessfailure-not-dispatched-to-ajaxresponders] while waiting for the anax revamp in v2 thanks and sorry for the double post. cheers -- mona On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Mona Remlawi mona.reml...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Prototypers, Any reason why the Ajax.Responders does not support the registration of handlers for onFailure event? cheers -- mona Also http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9690 -- - Richard Quadling Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants! EE : http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_248814.html Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498r=213474731 ZOPA : http://uk.zopa.com/member/RQuadling --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Function.EMPTY and Function.K
Being serious for a moment, it sounds like we're all happy (enough)
with Function.empty.
Can't say I *like* Function.identity (I'd prefer Function.passBack)
but it at least is readily defensible as being derived from
mathematics (like curry) and there are several yea vote for it in
this thread.
-- T.J. :-)
On Sep 29, 8:58 am, Jim Higson j...@wikizzle.org wrote:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 06:49:15 Joran Greef wrote:
Prototype's existing String.empty and Array.empty interfaces would
imply that Function.empty return a boolean indicating perhaps that the
function is empty.
Well, it *could* do:
Function.empty = function(){};
Function.empty.empty = function(){return true};
Of course this doesn't cover other empty functions and I may be not entirely
serious ;-)
Jim
--
Jim
my wiki ajaxification thing:http://wikizzle.org
my blog:http://jimhigson.blogspot.com/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Function.EMPTY and Function.K
Agreed. I like Function.identity as well for the same reason in that there is in fact a reason. I don't think Function.empty has the same going for it, apart from it being the legacy terminology. We could do better. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
Hi, I've implemented a simple library on the top of DOM storage and IE userData to act as a browser side caching solution called DOMCached (www.domcached.com). The library acts like a kind of javascript memcached caching solution - a script can store objects to the cache and retrieve it later on another pageview. For example if the user is already made an Ajax request and the data is stored to the DOMCache then there is no need to do this request to the server again. Or if you try to fill out a form and your browser crashes - if the data was stored to the cache by the script then nothing is lost when you re-open the form. And so on, the possibilities are endless. Anyhow - I was wondering if similar functionality (or DOMCached itself) could be added to the Prototype library? Best regards, Andris Reinman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:12 AM, andris andris.rein...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've implemented a simple library on the top of DOM storage and IE userData to act as a browser side caching solution called DOMCached (www.domcached.com). The library acts like a kind of javascript memcached caching solution - a script can store objects to the cache and retrieve it later on another pageview. For example if the user is already made an Ajax request and the data is stored to the DOMCache then there is no need to do this request to the server again. Or if you try to fill out a form and your browser crashes - if the data was stored to the cache by the script then nothing is lost when you re-open the form. And so on, the possibilities are endless. Anyhow - I was wondering if similar functionality (or DOMCached itself) could be added to the Prototype library? Best regards, Andris Reinman +1 As a user of Prototype, I'd like to see something like this added. Clean, simple and useful. Mark --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
On Sep 29, 10:12 am, andris andris.rein...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've implemented a simple library on the top of DOM storage and IE userData to act as a browser side caching solution called DOMCached (www.domcached.com). The library acts like a kind of javascript memcached caching solution - a script can store objects to the cache and retrieve it later on another pageview. For example if the user is already made an Ajax request and the data is stored to the DOMCache then there is no need to do this request to the server again. Or if you try to fill out a form and your browser crashes - if the data was stored to the cache by the script then nothing is lost when you re-open the form. And so on, the possibilities are endless. I've done something similar (although not publicly available yet) :) Why don't you use database abstraction when available? It would fill in those Safari 3 and Chrome gaps. Anyhow - I was wondering if similar functionality (or DOMCached itself) could be added to the Prototype library? I can't speak for everyone in the core, but most definitely not. This is clearly more suited for a standalone module. On a side note, I haven't noticed any unit tests; only functional ones on the front page. -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
Thank you for the replies! Why don't you use database abstraction when available? It would fill in those Safari 3 and Chrome gaps. Do you mean database abstraction as a server side database? My point was only to use browser-side for the caching. On a side note, I haven't noticed any unit tests; only functional ones on the front page. Sorry for that, the idea struck me yesterday and I immediately tried to implement it (along with the domain registration and so on:) ), so there hasn't been much time to come up with the correct tests. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM, kangax kan...@gmail.com wrote: I can't speak for everyone in the core, but most definitely not. This is clearly more suited for a standalone module. Actually, you changed my [user] mind. Module makes more sense. Core libs shouldn't get bloated. (but this is good to know about, thanks!) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
On Sep 29, 5:48 pm, andris andris.rein...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for the replies! Why don't you use database abstraction when available? It would fill in those Safari 3 and Chrome gaps. Do you mean database abstraction as a server side database? My point was only to use browser-side for the caching. Nope. I mean clean-side database storage - http://webkit.org/blog/126/ webkit-does-html5-client-side-database-storage/ [...] -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
I use small (40 lines of code) storage class, that uses cookies or localStorage. IMHO, userData and databases not so usefull: IE userData behavior relies on DOM. database works in webkit, which supports localStorage. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
On Sep 30, 12:01 am, Yaffle vic99...@yandex.ru wrote: [...] database works in webkit, which supports localStorage. Not in Safari 3 and not in any version of Chrome as of now (although, Chrome is working on `localStorage` at the moment - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=4360). Both - Safari 3 and Chrome - have database storage, though. -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Suggestion: DOM storage methods to Prototype
Yes that's is, but Safari and Chrome isn't popular browsers.(depends on site audience) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
