[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
Andrew, great to hear 1.6.0.3 is coming soon, I'm sure 1.6.1 is going to be great. There are great ideas floating around for it, although I hope that by the time 1.6.1 is released it won't be seen as Prototype playing catch-up. Maybe that's unavoidable though with funded frameworks around the corner. I just hope the website will get an update as well so it doesn't hold people back while the code is only getting better. The code is not what worries me, it's the community not paying enough attention. As far as I'm concerned getting the community involved is the area where other frameworks are outcompeting Prototype at the moment. Looking at job openings these days it saddens me to see people having settled on some other framework before they even have a Javascript guy on board, there you have some competition between frameworks Prototype could end up stronger in. I'm not that great on things that don't involve code but I'll be looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Regards, Nick On 26 sep, 23:58, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 26, 10:30 am, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > > jQuery is so popular is it's community > > The last few months have been unusual for Prototype Core: most of us > have been especially busy in our day jobs. Prototype has always been a > side project, but then most open source projects are; JQuery is in the > enviable position of having its full-time development fully funded > (Paul Bakaus's employer pays him to work on jQuery). > > > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > > pick a framework then becomes very easy. > > In truth, I'd agree with most of the suggestions on how we could > improve our community. We're not lacking in initiative; we're lacking > in time, and if anyone reading this considers himself/herself good at > managing mailing lists, evangelizing, organizing documentation, and > the like, we'd love to have your help. > > In other words, Prototype won't be like MochiKit, which languished > because its author lost interest. We just need to find more people > that are (a) willing to help out in ways that don't involve writing > code; and (b) able to get stuff done. We've got plenty of A, but not > much of B, mostly because the people who want to help out are often > just as busy as we are. > > > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. > > Nick, I take your opinion very seriously, and it unsettles me to know > you're this pessimistic about the future of Prototype. It means we > haven't been doing our jobs well lately. We're going to push out > 1.6.0.3 as soon as we can and then start focusing on 1.6.1 (which I > guarantee will have some stuff you'll love). > > Cheers, > Andrew --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
I like Prototype because it takes all the work out of Javascript. I've been using it for a few years now but as a PHP developer I usually only used it for Ajax. Only recently have I started to get acquainted with all of its other components, and it is a pleasure to work with. Just last night, for fun, I decided to build a rater just like the one on livepipe.net. I didn't look at their code so that I could really learn how to do it on my own and it only took me a few hours to finish it. Here's the code and examples: http://www.virgentech.com/code/ratable While JQuery may be fast for someone who knows it, I believe Prototype can be just as fast as long as you know it. I use CSS selectors ($$() and Element.select()) when appropriate, and you're right that it makes things much easier. I'm glad Prototype supports it :) I'm not sure if I agree with all of your points, Diodeus, only because they mostly all also apply to Prototype, too. In other words, I'm not convinced that JQuery will make things any easier for me than Prototype has. Although JQuery is popular, what is popular is not always best (*cough* Windows *cough*). It really just comes down to what works for you and what you feel comfortable with, and right now I am very comfortable with Prototype. -Hector On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On Sep 26, 10:30 am, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > > jQuery is so popular is it's community > > The last few months have been unusual for Prototype Core: most of us > have been especially busy in our day jobs. Prototype has always been a > side project, but then most open source projects are; JQuery is in the > enviable position of having its full-time development fully funded > (Paul Bakaus's employer pays him to work on jQuery). > > > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > > pick a framework then becomes very easy. > > In truth, I'd agree with most of the suggestions on how we could > improve our community. We're not lacking in initiative; we're lacking > in time, and if anyone reading this considers himself/herself good at > managing mailing lists, evangelizing, organizing documentation, and > the like, we'd love to have your help. > > In other words, Prototype won't be like MochiKit, which languished > because its author lost interest. We just need to find more people > that are (a) willing to help out in ways that don't involve writing > code; and (b) able to get stuff done. We've got plenty of A, but not > much of B, mostly because the people who want to help out are often > just as busy as we are. > > > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. > > Nick, I take your opinion very seriously, and it unsettles me to know > you're this pessimistic about the future of Prototype. It means we > haven't been doing our jobs well lately. We're going to push out > 1.6.0.3 as soon as we can and then start focusing on 1.6.1 (which I > guarantee will have some stuff you'll love). > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
On Sep 26, 10:30 am, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > jQuery is so popular is it's community The last few months have been unusual for Prototype Core: most of us have been especially busy in our day jobs. Prototype has always been a side project, but then most open source projects are; JQuery is in the enviable position of having its full-time development fully funded (Paul Bakaus's employer pays him to work on jQuery). > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > pick a framework then becomes very easy. In truth, I'd agree with most of the suggestions on how we could improve our community. We're not lacking in initiative; we're lacking in time, and if anyone reading this considers himself/herself good at managing mailing lists, evangelizing, organizing documentation, and the like, we'd love to have your help. In other words, Prototype won't be like MochiKit, which languished because its author lost interest. We just need to find more people that are (a) willing to help out in ways that don't involve writing code; and (b) able to get stuff done. We've got plenty of A, but not much of B, mostly because the people who want to help out are often just as busy as we are. > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. Nick, I take your opinion very seriously, and it unsettles me to know you're this pessimistic about the future of Prototype. It means we haven't been doing our jobs well lately. We're going to push out 1.6.0.3 as soon as we can and then start focusing on 1.6.1 (which I guarantee will have some stuff you'll love). Cheers, Andrew --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Creating classes based on HTML elements
Kangax,
Your method indeed appears to be the most suitable option at this
moment. Thanks!
On Sep 26, 11:40 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:54 am, Rumith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying to implement a method that would allow to use
> > Class.create() inheriting HTML elements like div instead of other
> > classes. That is, the result would be something like this (the syntax
> > is arbitrary and is for demo purposes only):
>
> > var Block = Class.create("div", {
> > initialize: function(bgColor) {
> > this.style.backgroundColor = bgColor;
> > },
>
> > highlight: function() {
> >
> > },
>
> > });
>
> > var block = new Block("#ff");
> > document.getElementById("mountPoint").appendChild(block);
> > block.highlight();
>
> > The purpose is to defeat the necessity to maintain two JS objects (the
> > actual DOM element and the object containing the special methods and
> > the DOM element) per entity.
> > Has anybody tried something like this? Can it be done without
> > modifying Prototype itself? Thanks.
>
> A wrapper/decorator pattern would probably be the best option:
>
> var DOMElement = Class.create({
> initialize: function(tagName, options) {
> this.__element = new Element(tagName || 'div', options);
> },
> // invoked when passed to `insert`
> toElement: function() {
> return this.__element;
> },
> setStyle: function(style) {
> this.__element.setStyle(style);
> return this;
> }
>
> });
>
> var Block = Class.create(DOMElement, {
> initialize: function($super, bgColor) {
> // call superclass, create element
> $super('div');
> this.setStyle('backgroundColor', bgColor);
> },
> // add custom methods to a subclass
> highlight: function() {
> this.__element.highlight();
> }
>
> });
>
> var block = new Block("#ff");
> $(document.body).insert(block);
> block.highlight();
>
> --
> kangax
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
Hi, I a new user from Prototype (2 weaks so far) I am begin to look diferents libraries: prototype, jquery, mootools, etc. After some time I decide to use prototype because I feel what have better documentation for beginer (can be better) like me. I just only use AJAX. I am doing a application web (before use VB6) so no need effects or maybe later. My 2 cents. ps. Sorry for my english ;) 2008/9/26 Diodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find > that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed > on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the > capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such > popularity vs Prototype? > > This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions > on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know > this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, > and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A > few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining > momentum. > > Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it > fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) > > Here's the post I read today: > > - - - > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/139723/which-javascript-framework-is-the-simplest-and-most-powerful > - - - > Question: Which Javascript Framework is the simplest and most > powerful? > - - - > > I propose jQuery. > > I'll give you some of the major arguments from the presentation that > my team put on yesterday for senior management to convince them of > that. > > Reasons: > > 1. > > Community acceptance. Look at this graph. It shows searches for > "prototype", "yui" and "scriptaculous" growing from 2004 to 2008. Then > out of nowhere in 2006 searches fro "jquery" shoot up to double the > number of the other libraries. The community is actually converging on > a single leading product, and it's jQuery. > 2. > > jQuery is very very succinct and readable. I conducted an > experiment in which I took existing code (selected at random) written > in YUI, and tried re-writing it in jQuery. It was 1/4 as long in > jQuery. That makes it 4 times as easy to write, and 4 times as easy to > maintain. > 3. > > jQuery integrates well with the rest of the web world. The use > of CSS syntax as the key for selecting items is a brilliant trick > which helps to meld together the highly diseparate worlds of HTML, CSS > and JavaScript. > 4. > > Documentation: jQuery has excellent documentation, with clear > specifications and working examples of every method. It has excellent > books (I recommend "jQuery in Action".) The only competitor which > matches it is YUI. > 5. > > Active user community: the Google group which is the main > community discussion forum for Prototype has nearly 1000 members. The > Google group for jQuery has 10 times as many members. And my personal > experience is that the community tends to be helpful. > 6. > > Easy learning curve. jQuery is easy to learn, even for people > with experience as a designer, but no experience in coding. > 7. > > Performance. Check out this, which is published by mootools. It > compares the speed of different frameworks. jQuery is not always the > VERY fastest, but it is quite good on every test. > 8. > > Plays well with others: jQuery's noConflict mode and the core > library's small size help it to work well in environments that are > already using other libraries. > 9. > > Designed to make JavaScript usable. Looping is a pain in > JavaScript; jQuery works with set objects you almost never need to > write the loop. JavaScript's greatest strength is that functions are > first-class objects; jQuery makes extensive use of this feature. > 10. > > Plug-ins. jQuery is designed to make it easy to write plugins. > And there is an enormous community of people out there writing > plugins. Anything you want is probably out there. Check out things > like this or this for visual examples. > > I hope you find this convincing! > - - - > > > > > -- Lo bueno de vivir un dia mas es saber que nos queda un dia menos de vida --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:52:47AM -0700, Diodeus wrote: > One this that I always thought strange is why it is called "Prototype" > -- it makes it seem like it's half-built and experimental, rather than > a usable product. While I understand the OO reference, I'm sure many > don't. > > Perhaps the suggestion of merging the two is a valid one (even if they > continue to be two separate pieces). Perhaps all of this would benefit > from a re-branding and a better community-based web site where people > can post more code samples, tutorials and such. I dislike jQuery. I have criteria for what I consider a useful JS library. Essentially all of them have reasonable DOM manipulation and easy animation and things like that. Some have good reusable controls/widgets/behaviors. But jQuery leaves you high and dry when you need to do things that are not directly related to the DOM. If I need to retrieve a fragment of HTML via AJAX and plop it into the page somewhere, I can do that with anything. If I need to process a JSON response from the AJAX request to generate several dynamic views based on the state of various form controls, however, it gets a lot messier in ways that Prototype makes clean. If I have state to maintain that doesn't live in the DOM, it takes more work with jQuery than Prototype. Once you go beyond the DOM, jQuery is no longer your friend. Because jQuery is so geared toward making it easy to manipulate the DOM, however, it is easier for non-programmers to use and like. There are discussions where I work about standardizing on jQuery because our HTML/CSS guys can work with it more easily. Of course, when they need to do something more complicated they will call on us, the programmers, and we'll have to work in that part of the problem space where jQuery is no help at all. At some point, in my copious free time (ha!), I would like to learn jQuery and Prototype at the source level (i.e. beyond using them as libraries) and see how much work it is to build something that gives me the best of both worlds. I suspect it will be much easier to add jQuery's convenience to Prototype than Prototype's language niceties to jQuery, but it's a worthy experiment. At that point, I might be in a position to build something that really is the best of both worlds. --Greg > On Sep 26, 11:48 am, bluezehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What prototype desperately needs is a better community than a group on > > google! I mean, there are much better interfaces for communities, and > > there's an irony there that prototype is supposed to be promoting the > > better use of interfaces... Also merging prototype and scriptaculous > > into one project I believe would be beneficial. I understand the > > distinction but it's just confusing for new users. > > > > I love coding on prototype - I think it's fantastic - but if it's not > > going to be supported/developed on in the future, then I'll have no > > choice but to start again with jquery. > > > > On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > > > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > > > jQuery is so popular is it's community, it's certainly not those > > > points in your article since those are true for most frameworks. > > > People who write those articles look at it from one framework and are > > > often not even familiar with other frameworks. > > > > > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > > > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > > > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > > > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > > > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > > > pick a framework then becomes very easy. > > > > > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. > > > > > -- > > > Nick > > > > > On 26 sep, 16:52, Diodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find > > > > that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed > > > > on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the > > > > capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such > > > > popularity vs Prototype? > > > > > > This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions > > > > on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know > > > > this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, > > > > and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A > > > > few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining > > > > momentum. > > > > > > Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it > > > > fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) > > > > > > Here's the post I read today: > > > > > > -
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Creating classes based on HTML elements
On Sep 26, 9:54 am, Rumith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to implement a method that would allow to use
> Class.create() inheriting HTML elements like div instead of other
> classes. That is, the result would be something like this (the syntax
> is arbitrary and is for demo purposes only):
>
> var Block = Class.create("div", {
> initialize: function(bgColor) {
> this.style.backgroundColor = bgColor;
> },
>
> highlight: function() {
>
> },
>
> });
>
> var block = new Block("#ff");
> document.getElementById("mountPoint").appendChild(block);
> block.highlight();
>
> The purpose is to defeat the necessity to maintain two JS objects (the
> actual DOM element and the object containing the special methods and
> the DOM element) per entity.
> Has anybody tried something like this? Can it be done without
> modifying Prototype itself? Thanks.
A wrapper/decorator pattern would probably be the best option:
var DOMElement = Class.create({
initialize: function(tagName, options) {
this.__element = new Element(tagName || 'div', options);
},
// invoked when passed to `insert`
toElement: function() {
return this.__element;
},
setStyle: function(style) {
this.__element.setStyle(style);
return this;
}
});
var Block = Class.create(DOMElement, {
initialize: function($super, bgColor) {
// call superclass, create element
$super('div');
this.setStyle('backgroundColor', bgColor);
},
// add custom methods to a subclass
highlight: function() {
this.__element.highlight();
}
});
var block = new Block("#ff");
$(document.body).insert(block);
block.highlight();
--
kangax
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
One this that I always thought strange is why it is called "Prototype" -- it makes it seem like it's half-built and experimental, rather than a usable product. While I understand the OO reference, I'm sure many don't. Perhaps the suggestion of merging the two is a valid one (even if they continue to be two separate pieces). Perhaps all of this would benefit from a re-branding and a better community-based web site where people can post more code samples, tutorials and such. On Sep 26, 11:48 am, bluezehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What prototype desperately needs is a better community than a group on > google! I mean, there are much better interfaces for communities, and > there's an irony there that prototype is supposed to be promoting the > better use of interfaces... Also merging prototype and scriptaculous > into one project I believe would be beneficial. I understand the > distinction but it's just confusing for new users. > > I love coding on prototype - I think it's fantastic - but if it's not > going to be supported/developed on in the future, then I'll have no > choice but to start again with jquery. > > On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > > jQuery is so popular is it's community, it's certainly not those > > points in your article since those are true for most frameworks. > > People who write those articles look at it from one framework and are > > often not even familiar with other frameworks. > > > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > > pick a framework then becomes very easy. > > > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. > > > -- > > Nick > > > On 26 sep, 16:52, Diodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find > > > that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed > > > on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the > > > capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such > > > popularity vs Prototype? > > > > This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions > > > on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know > > > this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, > > > and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A > > > few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining > > > momentum. > > > > Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it > > > fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) > > > > Here's the post I read today: > > > > - - > > > -http://stackoverflow.com/questions/139723/which-javascript-framework-... > > > - - - > > > Question: Which Javascript Framework is the simplest and most > > > powerful? > > > - - - > > > > I propose jQuery. > > > > I'll give you some of the major arguments from the presentation that > > > my team put on yesterday for senior management to convince them of > > > that. > > > > Reasons: > > > >1. > > > > Community acceptance. Look at this graph. It shows searches for > > > "prototype", "yui" and "scriptaculous" growing from 2004 to 2008. Then > > > out of nowhere in 2006 searches fro "jquery" shoot up to double the > > > number of the other libraries. The community is actually converging on > > > a single leading product, and it's jQuery. > > >2. > > > > jQuery is very very succinct and readable. I conducted an > > > experiment in which I took existing code (selected at random) written > > > in YUI, and tried re-writing it in jQuery. It was 1/4 as long in > > > jQuery. That makes it 4 times as easy to write, and 4 times as easy to > > > maintain. > > >3. > > > > jQuery integrates well with the rest of the web world. The use > > > of CSS syntax as the key for selecting items is a brilliant trick > > > which helps to meld together the highly diseparate worlds of HTML, CSS > > > and JavaScript. > > >4. > > > > Documentation: jQuery has excellent documentation, with clear > > > specifications and working examples of every method. It has excellent > > > books (I recommend "jQuery in Action".) The only competitor which > > > matches it is YUI. > > >5. > > > > Active user community: the Google group which is the main > > > community discussion forum for Prototype has nearly 1000 members. The > > > Google group for jQuery has 10 times as many members. And my personal > > > experience is that the community tends to be helpful. > > >6. > > > >
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Creating classes based on HTML elements
> First problem with your scenario is you're sending in a string as the > superclass, this isn't going to work regardless. That's what I meant when I said that the syntax is arbitrary :) I understand that in reality I'll have to use a wrapper function of some kind, but what kind of a function exactly? > As a quasi-solution you could use Element.addMethods to implement > extra functionality to a div object such that you could call your > highlight method. It appears that apart from creating custom versions of host objects (which I haven't been able to do properly yet) that would be the only method. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Sortables.create and recursion
$$("ul.myMenu, ul.myMenu ul").each(function(ele){
Sortable.create(ele);
});
On Sep 26, 5:16 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want my customer to arrange menu and sub menus as he like it to be.
> So :
>
>
> First item
> Second item
> Third item
>
> First sub item
> Second sub item
> Third sub item
>
> Fourth item
> Fifth item
>
>
> Sortable.create('myMenu');
>
> But it take only the first level into consideration...
>
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thank you for your help
>
> David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Ajax.Autocomplete Questions
You don't say if you're having any problems with this, but you can remove the autocomplete (invalid) attribute -- Scripty adds that behavior automagically. Otherwise, this looks okay from the calling side. If your return includes anything besides a bare list (and these strong tags count, I believe) then you might see failure from there. You're returning a UL, but it's being treated as a data store more than a presentational element. I see what you're trying to accomplish here, but you need to add that style using another means. There is a "hook" event that happens after the autocompleter has refreshed its display. Try patching into that to find and replace the search text within the result list with a 'stronged' version of itself. Walter On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:03 PM, ericindc wrote: > > Thanks Walter, that cleared things up. > > Here is a link to the HTML that contains the new Ajax.Autocompleter > code as well as my input field and response div. The PHP script > prints a string of the following format: > > [ul] >[li id="1234"][strong]Perk[/strong]ins, Justin[/li] >[li id="5678"][strong]Perk[/strong]ins, Tim[/li] > [/ul] > > http://pastie.org/279871 > > On Sep 26, 11:18 am, Walter Lee Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When the Autocompleter says "returns", it means returns in the same >> way that when you request a page from a Web server, the server >> returns that page. It's a HTTP return, not a PHP return. >> >> A function (in PHP or any language) may return a string or other >> variable. But that string won't go anywhere outside the application >> server (won't be sent to the browser) unless you print() or echo() >> it. >> >> Walter >> >> On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:16 PM, ericindc wrote: >> >> >> >>> The part I was confused on is that my PHP code >>> doesn't actually return the string containing the unordered list, >>> but >>> rather prints it.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Creating classes based on HTML elements
A very good idea, something I had pondered as well but never came up
with a solution I was satisfied with.
First problem with your scenario is you're sending in a string as the
superclass, this isn't going to work regardless. You could use new
Element('div') but this is going to create a static instance that all
instantiations of your Block class would use, not ideal.
As a quasi-solution you could use Element.addMethods to implement
extra functionality to a div object such that you could call your
highlight method.
Element.addMethods("div" { structOf : function });
http://prototypejs.org/api/element/addMethods
On Sep 26, 8:54 am, Rumith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to implement a method that would allow to use
> Class.create() inheriting HTML elements like div instead of other
> classes. That is, the result would be something like this (the syntax
> is arbitrary and is for demo purposes only):
>
> var Block = Class.create("div", {
> initialize: function(bgColor) {
> this.style.backgroundColor = bgColor;
> },
>
> highlight: function() {
>
> },
>
> });
>
> var block = new Block("#ff");
> document.getElementById("mountPoint").appendChild(block);
> block.highlight();
>
> The purpose is to defeat the necessity to maintain two JS objects (the
> actual DOM element and the object containing the special methods and
> the DOM element) per entity.
> Has anybody tried something like this? Can it be done without
> modifying Prototype itself? Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: How to destroy a Control instance ?
On Sep 26, 9:46 am, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, I let say I've an object created like this > > my_slider = new Control.Slider(handle, track, options); > > How can I do to completely destroy this instance ? my_slider.dispose(); handler.remove(); track.remove(); > > Thanks -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Ajax.Autocomplete Questions
Thanks Walter, that cleared things up. Here is a link to the HTML that contains the new Ajax.Autocompleter code as well as my input field and response div. The PHP script prints a string of the following format: [ul] [li id="1234"][strong]Perk[/strong]ins, Justin[/li] [li id="5678"][strong]Perk[/strong]ins, Tim[/li] [/ul] http://pastie.org/279871 On Sep 26, 11:18 am, Walter Lee Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When the Autocompleter says "returns", it means returns in the same > way that when you request a page from a Web server, the server > returns that page. It's a HTTP return, not a PHP return. > > A function (in PHP or any language) may return a string or other > variable. But that string won't go anywhere outside the application > server (won't be sent to the browser) unless you print() or echo() it. > > Walter > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:16 PM, ericindc wrote: > > > > > The part I was confused on is that my PHP code > > doesn't actually return the string containing the unordered list, but > > rather prints it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
What prototype desperately needs is a better community than a group on google! I mean, there are much better interfaces for communities, and there's an irony there that prototype is supposed to be promoting the better use of interfaces... Also merging prototype and scriptaculous into one project I believe would be beneficial. I understand the distinction but it's just confusing for new users. I love coding on prototype - I think it's fantastic - but if it's not going to be supported/developed on in the future, then I'll have no choice but to start again with jquery. On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to > be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason > jQuery is so popular is it's community, it's certainly not those > points in your article since those are true for most frameworks. > People who write those articles look at it from one framework and are > often not even familiar with other frameworks. > > What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things > like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . > People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery > has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly > anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to > pick a framework then becomes very easy. > > Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. > > -- > Nick > > On 26 sep, 16:52, Diodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find > > that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed > > on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the > > capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such > > popularity vs Prototype? > > > This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions > > on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know > > this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, > > and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A > > few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining > > momentum. > > > Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it > > fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) > > > Here's the post I read today: > > > - - > > -http://stackoverflow.com/questions/139723/which-javascript-framework-... > > - - - > > Question: Which Javascript Framework is the simplest and most > > powerful? > > - - - > > > I propose jQuery. > > > I'll give you some of the major arguments from the presentation that > > my team put on yesterday for senior management to convince them of > > that. > > > Reasons: > > > 1. > > > Community acceptance. Look at this graph. It shows searches for > > "prototype", "yui" and "scriptaculous" growing from 2004 to 2008. Then > > out of nowhere in 2006 searches fro "jquery" shoot up to double the > > number of the other libraries. The community is actually converging on > > a single leading product, and it's jQuery. > > 2. > > > jQuery is very very succinct and readable. I conducted an > > experiment in which I took existing code (selected at random) written > > in YUI, and tried re-writing it in jQuery. It was 1/4 as long in > > jQuery. That makes it 4 times as easy to write, and 4 times as easy to > > maintain. > > 3. > > > jQuery integrates well with the rest of the web world. The use > > of CSS syntax as the key for selecting items is a brilliant trick > > which helps to meld together the highly diseparate worlds of HTML, CSS > > and JavaScript. > > 4. > > > Documentation: jQuery has excellent documentation, with clear > > specifications and working examples of every method. It has excellent > > books (I recommend "jQuery in Action".) The only competitor which > > matches it is YUI. > > 5. > > > Active user community: the Google group which is the main > > community discussion forum for Prototype has nearly 1000 members. The > > Google group for jQuery has 10 times as many members. And my personal > > experience is that the community tends to be helpful. > > 6. > > > Easy learning curve. jQuery is easy to learn, even for people > > with experience as a designer, but no experience in coding. > > 7. > > > Performance. Check out this, which is published by mootools. It > > compares the speed of different frameworks. jQuery is not always the > > VERY fastest, but it is quite good on every test. > > 8. > > > Plays well with others: jQuery's noConflict mode and the core > > library's small size help it to work well in environments that are > > already using other libraries. > > 9. > > > Designed to make JavaScript usable. Looping is a pain in > > JavaScript; jQuery works with set objects you almost never need to > > write the loop. Ja
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
I'm not sure if Prototype has a real future, at the moment it seems to be getting more and more a side project for it's authors. The reason jQuery is so popular is it's community, it's certainly not those points in your article since those are true for most frameworks. People who write those articles look at it from one framework and are often not even familiar with other frameworks. What would help is if Prototype focussed more on the community, things like scripteka.com need to be intergrated into prototypejs.org . People tend to go with jQuery because all they want is plugins, jQuery has them right there on the main page, while for prototype hardly anyone knows how to find a plugin so the choice for the average guy to pick a framework then becomes very easy. Perhaps 1.6.1 will breath some new life into things, or maybe not. -- Nick On 26 sep, 16:52, Diodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find > that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed > on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the > capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such > popularity vs Prototype? > > This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions > on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know > this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, > and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A > few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining > momentum. > > Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it > fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) > > Here's the post I read today: > > - - -http://stackoverflow.com/questions/139723/which-javascript-framework-... > - - - > Question: Which Javascript Framework is the simplest and most > powerful? > - - - > > I propose jQuery. > > I'll give you some of the major arguments from the presentation that > my team put on yesterday for senior management to convince them of > that. > > Reasons: > >1. > > Community acceptance. Look at this graph. It shows searches for > "prototype", "yui" and "scriptaculous" growing from 2004 to 2008. Then > out of nowhere in 2006 searches fro "jquery" shoot up to double the > number of the other libraries. The community is actually converging on > a single leading product, and it's jQuery. >2. > > jQuery is very very succinct and readable. I conducted an > experiment in which I took existing code (selected at random) written > in YUI, and tried re-writing it in jQuery. It was 1/4 as long in > jQuery. That makes it 4 times as easy to write, and 4 times as easy to > maintain. >3. > > jQuery integrates well with the rest of the web world. The use > of CSS syntax as the key for selecting items is a brilliant trick > which helps to meld together the highly diseparate worlds of HTML, CSS > and JavaScript. >4. > > Documentation: jQuery has excellent documentation, with clear > specifications and working examples of every method. It has excellent > books (I recommend "jQuery in Action".) The only competitor which > matches it is YUI. >5. > > Active user community: the Google group which is the main > community discussion forum for Prototype has nearly 1000 members. The > Google group for jQuery has 10 times as many members. And my personal > experience is that the community tends to be helpful. >6. > > Easy learning curve. jQuery is easy to learn, even for people > with experience as a designer, but no experience in coding. >7. > > Performance. Check out this, which is published by mootools. It > compares the speed of different frameworks. jQuery is not always the > VERY fastest, but it is quite good on every test. >8. > > Plays well with others: jQuery's noConflict mode and the core > library's small size help it to work well in environments that are > already using other libraries. >9. > > Designed to make JavaScript usable. Looping is a pain in > JavaScript; jQuery works with set objects you almost never need to > write the loop. JavaScript's greatest strength is that functions are > first-class objects; jQuery makes extensive use of this feature. > 10. > > Plug-ins. jQuery is designed to make it easy to write plugins. > And there is an enormous community of people out there writing > plugins. Anything you want is probably out there. Check out things > like this or this for visual examples. > > I hope you find this convincing! > - - - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-script
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Ajax.Autocomplete Questions
When the Autocompleter says "returns", it means returns in the same way that when you request a page from a Web server, the server returns that page. It's a HTTP return, not a PHP return. A function (in PHP or any language) may return a string or other variable. But that string won't go anywhere outside the application server (won't be sent to the browser) unless you print() or echo() it. Walter On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:16 PM, ericindc wrote: > The part I was confused on is that my PHP code > doesn't actually return the string containing the unordered list, but > rather prints it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Does Prototype have a future?
I like Prototype better than any other framework :p -justin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Does Prototype have a future?
While I am strong advocate of Prototype and Script.aculo.us, I find that the vast majority of discussion/coverage on the web is focussed on jQuery. I understand that there are not huge differences in the capabilities of these two libraries, so why has jQuery gained such popularity vs Prototype? This really hit home since I've been following questions/discussions on stackoverflow.com. Prototype is virtually invisible there. I know this isn't a "library war" and that the two can cheerfully coexist, and that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for everyone. A few years from now, where will we be? jQuery seems to be gaining momentum. Will there be a resurgence in the popularity of Prototype, or will it fade off into obscurity? (I certainly hope not) Here's the post I read today: - - - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/139723/which-javascript-framework-is-the-simplest-and-most-powerful - - - Question: Which Javascript Framework is the simplest and most powerful? - - - I propose jQuery. I'll give you some of the major arguments from the presentation that my team put on yesterday for senior management to convince them of that. Reasons: 1. Community acceptance. Look at this graph. It shows searches for "prototype", "yui" and "scriptaculous" growing from 2004 to 2008. Then out of nowhere in 2006 searches fro "jquery" shoot up to double the number of the other libraries. The community is actually converging on a single leading product, and it's jQuery. 2. jQuery is very very succinct and readable. I conducted an experiment in which I took existing code (selected at random) written in YUI, and tried re-writing it in jQuery. It was 1/4 as long in jQuery. That makes it 4 times as easy to write, and 4 times as easy to maintain. 3. jQuery integrates well with the rest of the web world. The use of CSS syntax as the key for selecting items is a brilliant trick which helps to meld together the highly diseparate worlds of HTML, CSS and JavaScript. 4. Documentation: jQuery has excellent documentation, with clear specifications and working examples of every method. It has excellent books (I recommend "jQuery in Action".) The only competitor which matches it is YUI. 5. Active user community: the Google group which is the main community discussion forum for Prototype has nearly 1000 members. The Google group for jQuery has 10 times as many members. And my personal experience is that the community tends to be helpful. 6. Easy learning curve. jQuery is easy to learn, even for people with experience as a designer, but no experience in coding. 7. Performance. Check out this, which is published by mootools. It compares the speed of different frameworks. jQuery is not always the VERY fastest, but it is quite good on every test. 8. Plays well with others: jQuery's noConflict mode and the core library's small size help it to work well in environments that are already using other libraries. 9. Designed to make JavaScript usable. Looping is a pain in JavaScript; jQuery works with set objects you almost never need to write the loop. JavaScript's greatest strength is that functions are first-class objects; jQuery makes extensive use of this feature. 10. Plug-ins. jQuery is designed to make it easy to write plugins. And there is an enormous community of people out there writing plugins. Anything you want is probably out there. Check out things like this or this for visual examples. I hope you find this convincing! - - - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Creating classes based on HTML elements
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a method that would allow to use
Class.create() inheriting HTML elements like div instead of other
classes. That is, the result would be something like this (the syntax
is arbitrary and is for demo purposes only):
var Block = Class.create("div", {
initialize: function(bgColor) {
this.style.backgroundColor = bgColor;
},
highlight: function() {
},
});
var block = new Block("#ff");
document.getElementById("mountPoint").appendChild(block);
block.highlight();
The purpose is to defeat the necessity to maintain two JS objects (the
actual DOM element and the object containing the special methods and
the DOM element) per entity.
Has anybody tried something like this? Can it be done without
modifying Prototype itself? Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] How to destroy a Control instance ?
Hello, I let say I've an object created like this my_slider = new Control.Slider(handle, track, options); How can I do to completely destroy this instance ? Thanks --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] SlideDown - Element is popping up
Hi, i have a often seen problem in Internet Explorer with scriptaculous (newest version). When i want to use the SlideDown effect the elements first get visible and after that the Effect starts, so you can see the whole element and then it desappears and it slides down. Why is it visible at the beginning of the Effect? Sorry for my bad englisch :) Thx --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Sortables.create and recursion
Hi,
I want my customer to arrange menu and sub menus as he like it to be.
So :
First item
Second item
Third item
First sub item
Second sub item
Third sub item
Fourth item
Fifth item
Sortable.create('myMenu');
But it take only the first level into consideration...
Any ideas ?
Thank you for your help
David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Bug when testing with htmlunit
Sorry for the late response,
I tried to replace my javascript with this one :
Event.observe(window, "load", function() {
Event.observe("chkAll", "click", function(event) {
//var element = event.element();
$$("input.chk").each(function(aCheck) {
aCheck.checked = $("chkAll").checked;//element.checked;
});
});
});
It works perfectly, so the error comes from the event.element(), like
you said.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Effect.Highlight and :hover stops working?
Thanks Justin!
With your help now it is working finally :-)
Though it does not respect the hover state when I set explicitly the
background color as in your code snippet. I had to set the background
style to empty string:
var element = $('');
element.highlight({ afterFinish: function(effectObject) {
effectObject.element.style.background = "";
}});
This works in Safari and Firefox.
Am 26.09.2008 um 06:38 schrieb Justin Perkins:
You want to use the afterFinish callback and set the background to
whatever color you need to. Setting the background color to an empty
string will have no effect (at least not when I tested it in Safari).
Also the way your setStyle() call is written, it will result in a
syntax error since the dash is an illegal character in that context as
well as the loose trailing semicolon.
Try something like this:
var element = $('itemHighlight'); // assuming element with ID of
itemHighlight is a TR with an odd or even class
element.highlight({ afterFinish:function(effectObject){
if (effectObject.element.hasClassName('odd'))
effectObject.element.setStyle('background-color:#fff;');
else effectObject.element.setStyle('background-color:#F1F5F9;');
}});
Also you can simplify your markup and CSS a tiny bit by not worrying
about assigning both an odd and even class to each row, just pick one
and go with that, for example only add the odd class to every other
row, then your CSS is:
tr{ background:#F1F5F9; }
tr.odd{ background:#fff; }
And since your hover color is the same for each row (regardless of if
it is odd or even), then you don't need the extra complicated selector
(class with hover pseudo class) and just go with:
tr:hover{ background:#DADFE4 }
Hope this helps.
-justin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Out of memory error
Hi Mike, Thanks for posting back. I think the 'out of memory' thing is a Firebug bug, not a bug in your code or Prototype. Good you were able to find the underlying problem. -- T.J. :-) On Sep 26, 4:14 am, MikeFeltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > Just wanted to let you know I was able to resolve this. I made several > changes, but I thing the issue was that the F1.Data.Validate function > was not specifying a return value. > > Mike --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Exception-Handling with prototype
Hi Yanosz, Can you provide a couple of concrete examples of silent failures? Maybe post a minimalist page demonstrating a couple of them to Pastie[1]? For the most part (IMHO) silent failures are a Bad Thing and so examples should be reported as bugs. But it doesn't hurt to discuss them first, not least to be sure that you're actually seeing what you think you're seeing (and that it's not a browser bug as opposed to a Prototype bug). :-) [1] http://pastie.org Thanks, -- T.J. Crowder tj / crowder software / com On Sep 25, 10:53 pm, Jan Luehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm using prototype & scriptaculous in various Ruby-on-Rails applications, > some of them do a lot of prototype & ajax stuff with RoR-Helpers. > But what I'ven't figured out yet is: > Is there a way to do exception-Handling with prototype? > While classic JavaScript exception handling uses try/catch blocks to handle > exceptions or (if none is available) throw them to browsers. I've discovered > a lot of situations were prototype code fails silently (espacially in IE6) - > making code hard to debug / allowing hardly any debugging at all. > Are there any ways / best-practices for prototype exception-Handling or Script > debugging? > > Thanks, > Keep smiling > yanosz --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Effect.Fade and Effect.Appear
So I am using the prototype and scriptaculous on my webpage that I am
designing with CakePHP.
This is my link that I am using:
echo $ajax->link($html->image('/img/portfolio/small/' .
$portfolio['Portfolio']['picture'], array('alt' =>
$portfolio['Portfolio']['title'])), '/portfolios/view/' .
$portfolio['Portfolio']['id'], array('update'=> 'case_study',
'complete' => 'Effect.Appear(\'case_study\', {duration: 2.0})'), null,
false);
Long I know. I can explain it more if you want me to, but the main
part here that is my focus and the reason I am asking on this board
instead of the CakePHP board is this part:
array('update'=> 'case_study', 'complete' =>
'Effect.Appear(\'case_study\', {duration: 2.0})')
Now all of this works as it is. However what I wanted was that after
the case_study div initially "appeared" was once another link was
clicked I wanted it to fade away and have it re-appear when it was
complete. So I thought I could add before the 'complete':
'before' => 'Effect.Fade(\'case_study\')
or
'loading' => Effect.Fade(\'case_study\')
Neither of these are working. What happens as soon as I add either of
those, is the div vaguely appears and then suddenly disappears, never
to appear again until another link appears and then it just continues
that cycle.
I was wondering if anyone can help me with this, if not I can move
this to the CakePHP group, just thought this was more of a
Scriptaculous issue.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Exception-Handling with prototype
Hello, I'm using prototype & scriptaculous in various Ruby-on-Rails applications, some of them do a lot of prototype & ajax stuff with RoR-Helpers. But what I'ven't figured out yet is: Is there a way to do exception-Handling with prototype? While classic JavaScript exception handling uses try/catch blocks to handle exceptions or (if none is available) throw them to browsers. I've discovered a lot of situations were prototype code fails silently (espacially in IE6) - making code hard to debug / allowing hardly any debugging at all. Are there any ways / best-practices for prototype exception-Handling or Script debugging? Thanks, Keep smiling yanosz --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
