[Proto-Scripty] findElements querySelectorAll error
i'm call the down function but am getting an invalid argument using
1.6.1_rc2
here's the html snippet:
TR id=00214A class=activeRow searchResultsDisplayOver
conceptID=001KIU
TD
DIV class=gridRowWrapper
SPAN class=SynDescAsymmetric breasts/SPAN
DIV class=buttonWrapper
SPAN class=btnAddFav title=Add to Favoritesnbsp;/
SPAN
/DIV
/DIV
/TD
/TR
here's the code:
var description = row.down('span.SynDesc').innerHTML;
row is a dom reference to the tr element.
the prototype is appending a # then the id of the tr element:
findElements: function(root) {
root = root || document;
var e = this.expression, results;
switch (this.mode) {
case 'selectorsAPI':
if (root !== document) {
var oldId = root.id, id = $(root).identify();
id = id.replace(/[\.:]/g, \\$0);
e = # + id + + e;
}
results = $A(root.querySelectorAll(e)).map(Element.extend);
-- e = #00214A span.SynDesc
root.id = oldId;
return results;
case 'xpath':
return document._getElementsByXPath(this.xpath, root);
default:
return this.matcher(root);
}
i get an invalid argument error?
if i put a breakpoint before the offending line and change e to be
equal to span.SynDesc it works fine.
help. :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype script.aculo.us group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] fatal error on the page under IE7 when a script can't run till its end = scriptaculous scripts stop to work
Hello,
I'm deseperately looking for the solution of a weird behavior on IE7.
I've this function, executed dynamically from a rjs (ror) template.
Basically it slides down a list of produts labels, one after this
other, in a wave maner.
function slideLabelsDown(labelsContainer){
Effect.multiple($(labelsContainer).select('.sale_item_label'),
Effect.SlideDown, {
transition:Effect.Transitions.spring,
speed:0.25,
duration:5});
$('top_sale_item_labels_ajax_wrapper').fade({delay:0.3,duration:
0.2});
}
Well the duration of this script is supposed to be 5 seconds, but when
you click on some other link before the function ends, you got the
following error only on IE :
Line 699
Char 7
'element.down()' is null or not an object
As far as I understand it doesn't find the current element to slide
down because it has been dynamically removed with all the page sub
content
So the error raises and then scipt aculous framework just stop
working. This is really problematic for me since i use its functions
intensivelly in quite every ajax call .
Does anybody know how to prevent or handle this kind exception?? try
{} catch(){} doesn't work ..
Thanks in advance !!
Nicolas
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Observe onmouseover and onmouseout with IE6
I have this bit of code in my webpage's header. It simply pulls all
the li elements from the mainmenu and attaches onmouseover and
onmouseout event observers to them to toggle the drop down effects of
the menu. It works perfectly in IE7 and Firefox but when I mouse over
the menu in IE6 I get nothing. Anyone have any ideas?
document.observe(dom:loaded, function() {
$$('#mainmenu li').each(function(item) {
$(item).observe(onmouseover, function() {
$(this).addClassName(sfhover);
}.bind(this));
$(item).observe(onmouseout, function() {
$(this).removeClassName(sfhover);
}.bind(this));
});
});
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Problem with this binding in class function
Hi,
I think I need to use .bind(this) somewhere...
Yup, exactly right. When you're passing around a reference to a
method for something else to call later, you'll need to bind it to the
instance -- otherwise, it will have the wrong context (this will be
wrong within the function call). So for instance, instead of:
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('stopObserving','click',this.outside);
...you'd want
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('stopObserving','click',this.outside.bind(this));
(You probably will never have need to use bindAsEventListener, details
here[1].)
There's nothing magic about what bind does, it just returns a function
that, when called, calls the original function in a way that sets the
context correctly.
Here's[2] a ueful page from the unofficial Prototype script.aculo.us
wiki on this. It also has some links at the end to useful articles
discussing this and context, so you know what's going on under the
covers.
[1]
http://proto-scripty.wikidot.com/prototype:tip-you-probably-don-t-need-bindaseventlistener
[2]
http://proto-scripty.wikidot.com/prototype:tip-using-an-instance-method-as-a-callback-or-event-handler
BTW, a terminology point: In your subject line you talked about a
class function and in your note you talked about class variables.
In each case, looking at your note and code you meant instance
rather than class. An instance method or variable is one you call
or use on *instances* of a class, whereas a class method or variable
is one you call or use on the class itself. For example,
Element#observe is an instance method, because you call it on
*instances* of the Element class:
$('someid').observe(...);
But Class.create (for example) is a class method, because you only
call it on the Class class itself:
var MyClass = Class.create(...);
Just FWIW.
HTH,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On May 20, 6:27 am, Dave L dly...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to use pre-existing functions in a new prototype class but
am having some trouble with binding. When I call a function within a
function it says that one of my class variables is undefined. I have
defined the class variable correctly I think:
var DropDown = Class.create({
initialize: function(date, appt_counter, times, edit_or_add) {
this.start_drop_id = start_drop_ + date + _ + appt_counter;
})
Then in the following outside function, start_drop_id is errored as
being undefined:
DropDown.prototype.show_block = function(element_id, element)
{
if(document.getElementById(element_id).style.display == block)
{
outsideOf = null;
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('stopObserving','click',this.outside); //stopObserving the outside
request as we have finished
document.getElementById(element_id).style.display = none;
} else {
outsideOf = element_id;
document.getElementById(element_id).style.display =
block;
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('observe','click',this.outside);
element.stopObserving('click',this.outside) //need to then
stop this from observing the outside - ie requires it at least
};
};
DropDown.prototype.outside = function(event) {
//alert(this.outsideOf)
this.element = event.element();
//alert(this.element.id)
if( outsideOf == null ) { //this shouldnt happen, but
just incase
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('stopObserving','click',this.outside);
return;
};
this.element = Event.element(event);
if( this.element.descendantOf( $(outsideOf) ) !== true) {
outsideOf = null;
$(document.body).descendants().invoke
('stopObserving','click',this.outside);
document.getElementById(this.start_drop_id).style.display =
none; //it says this is null
};
};
I think I need to use .bind(this) somewhere or maybe
bindAsEventListener? I'm not sure. This is my first time writing a
prototype class so I am bit lost.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] AJAX request to XML-RPC webservice
Hello everyone, This is my first intervention in this mailing list. I have been looking for a few days on how to call an XML-RPC webservice from a JavaScript client. I found a JS librarie (XOAP_Request : http://dsone.nl/xoap/usage.html) that depend on prototype and that build the XML message to be send with AJAX.Request(). My webservice is running on port 8000 on my server. My web page is running on port 80 of the same server. When I launch the AJAXX request using FireFox, I get the following JS warning, and nothing happen next : ** Security Error: Content at http://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/client2.html may not load data from http://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:8000/. ** When I launch the same request using Safari, the request access the server but it generate an error 501 (message Unsupported method OPTION). Using anything else (PHP, Python, ...) to call my webservice make it work. Does someone have a clue of what the problem could be ? Thank a lot for any help !! Kevin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: AJAX request to XML-RPC webservice
Hi, You're running into something called the Same Origin Policy, details here.[1] Basically, you can't use the XmlHttpRequest object to request resources from a different origin than the page in which the script is running, and origin includes the port. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy HTH, -- T.J. Crowder tj / crowder software / com Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available On May 20, 10:38 am, kfrancoi kfran...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, This is my first intervention in this mailing list. I have been looking for a few days on how to call an XML-RPC webservice from a JavaScript client. I found a JS librarie (XOAP_Request :http://dsone.nl/xoap/usage.html) that depend on prototype and that build the XML message to be send with AJAX.Request(). My webservice is running on port 8000 on my server. My web page is running on port 80 of the same server. When I launch the AJAXX request using FireFox, I get the following JS warning, and nothing happen next : ** Security Error: Content athttp://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/client2.htmlmay not load data fromhttp://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:8000/. ** When I launch the same request using Safari, the request access the server but it generate an error 501 (message Unsupported method OPTION). Using anything else (PHP, Python, ...) to call my webservice make it work. Does someone have a clue of what the problem could be ? Thank a lot for any help !! Kevin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: IE throws in extra unknown element (!)
Hi guys, Sorry for having to answer my own question (and so quickly) but I just found a fix already: http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/source/browse/trunk/src/ie7-overflow.js?r=2 A JavaScript library to make MSIE behave like a standards-compliant browser. This script seems to clear the styles applied to the element IE7 threw in. It seems at first that Prototype was the guilty party, so it's good to know I can now blame IE ;) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Mouse coods
Hi jk, this is prototype's work, it always keep the 'this' reference to the element receiving the event. Because in JS without prototype, the context is the 'window' object. -- david On 19 mai, 23:22, jk jk.lists.questi...@gmail.com wrote: How is that we don't loose context in some of those nested callbacks? Thanks. --jk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote: On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote: This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using (pretend) classes makes it harder not easier. Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date, rather than modifying a built-in object prototype, Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point. (I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths that JS has. ) Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: script.aculo.us Draggable event priority
On May 20, 2:59 am, jk jk.lists.questi...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a way to make any events registered by Draggable have the lowest possible priority? I have tried to execute new Draggable at the last moment, but it still seems to commandeer mousedown event. Thanks. --jk Unfortunately the Level 2 Event system *explicitly* does not define the order in which different event handlers are evoked on a single element. Wwhat I've done in this sort of case (and it's very unsatisfactory) is to have a state variable which tells me whether another handler is already working or not, and do the scheduling between them in that way. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Observe onmouseover and onmouseout with IE6
Hi,
Here is the same code that work in FF3.0 and IE6 (could not test other
browser):
document.observe(dom:loaded, function() {
$$('#mainmenu li').each(function(item) {
item.observe(mouseover, function() {
this.addClassName(sfhover);
});
item.observe(mouseout, function() {
this.removeClassName(sfhover);
});
})
});
What are the difference:
- First, your event is for IE only, on+eventName works only on IE, and
prototype help you by appending the 'on' prefix for IE. So I removed
it.
- Next, you'll bind the function to this inside each Observe method.
The 'this' context is forced by prototype to the DOM element the event
happend to, so no need to bind it (or if you need to bind the function
to OTHER specific context).
- Last, I suppress the $(this) by simply this. Prototype is loaded
before the DOM is created, and each element are automatically
extended. It could have a different behaviour if prototype is loaded
after the DOM, but in that case inside the event manipulation,
prototype internally call the $() function to exend the element.
-Finally, there is à }) missing, but I think this is a cut/paste
manipulation error (I'm probably the world champion oif cut/paste
trouble :)) ).
So try the function I gave you, if you still experience trouble, just
paste the whole code including HTML.
--
david
On 20 mai, 07:54, Dravis plu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have this bit of code in my webpage's header. It simply pulls all
the li elements from the mainmenu and attaches onmouseover and
onmouseout event observers to them to toggle the drop down effects of
the menu. It works perfectly in IE7 and Firefox but when I mouse over
the menu in IE6 I get nothing. Anyone have any ideas?
document.observe(dom:loaded, function() {
$$('#mainmenu li').each(function(item) {
$(item).observe(onmouseover, function() {
$(this).addClassName(sfhover);
}.bind(this));
$(item).observe(onmouseout, function() {
$(this).removeClassName(sfhover);
}.bind(this));
});
});
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: findElements querySelectorAll error
It might help if you included enough of your code to make sense of. Since you have not told us anything about this.expression or this.mode, it's hard to have any idea what might be going on, especially since 'description' (which is what you are apparently asking about) doesn't occur anywhere else in what you posted. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: findElements querySelectorAll error
Thanks Colin for your response. I found the issue. IE8 does not like html element ids to start with numbers. If I prepend an X_ to the id, it works fine. On May 20, 7:04 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote: It might help if you included enough of your code to make sense of. Since you have not told us anything about this.expression or this.mode, it's hard to have any idea what might be going on, especially since 'description' (which is what you are apparently asking about) doesn't occur anywhere else in what you posted. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Droppable double click and onUpdate problem in firefox and ie
I did my research, but couldn't find anything helpful to this specific
double click problem.
I would appreciat your help very much. Is it just a glitch?
Here is also the css:
#page{
margin:0 -20px 0 0 ;
}
.ex_instr{
position:fixed;
padding:0 0 0 10px ;
width:320px;
height:90px;
top:135px;
color: #999;
line-height:14px;
background-color: #000;
z-index:1200;
border-bottom: 2px solid #777;
margin: 0 0 0 -8px;
/*ie7 fix*/
#margin:0 0 0 -10px ;
#padding:0 0 0 10px ;
#height:95px;
/*ie6 fix*/
_margin:-30px 0 0 -10px ;
_height:90px;
}
#wordbank{
border: 0px;
_margin:-30px 0 0 -10px ;
min-width:220px;
z-index:1200;
}
.lineitem{
/*position: absolute;
top: 0;
background-color: #000;
float: left;*/
padding: 10px 20px 10px 0px;
cursor: move;
width: 110px;
color:#999;
/*z-index:400;*/
}
.section {
border: 1px solid #777;
margin: 5px;
padding: 0 5px 0 20px;
}
.dr_par{
line-height:20px;
width:300px;
padding: 0 0 10px 0;
}
.section1 {
text-align:left;
}
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: findElements querySelectorAll error
Just to beat one of my favorite drums -- the W3C doesn't allow IDs to begin with numbers. An ID may begin with an alphabetical character or an underscore. Period. Full stop. Numbers after that first character are just dandy. Walter On May 20, 2009, at 10:17 AM, pmac wrote: I found the issue. IE8 does not like html element ids to start with numbers. If I prepend an X_ to the id, it works fine. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Changing href in onclick function
To put what RobG said concretely, why can't you use:
$('ph').observe('click', function(event) {
if($('ph').href.endsWith('#')) {
event.preventDefault();
new Ajax.Request(geturl.php,
{
onComplete: function
(request) {
$('ph').href =
request.responseText;
location.href
= request.responseText;
}.bind(this)
});
} else {
// allow normal
click function
}
});
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
You can get more sophisticated - creating a prototype object for
special dates, with the functions defined on it, and using closures to
protect it, but I can't write that off the top of my head...
On May 20, 7:50 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that
Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using
(pretend) classes makes it harder not easier.
Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object
that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date,
rather than modifying a built-in object prototype,
Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's
prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point.
(I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's
Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths
that JS has. )
Colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
T.J.,
i think my last post was at least somewhat in line with your
suggestion. i just hadn't fully read and absorbed yours yet.
i will try using that factory approach. If i'm reading it right, it
handles the two-line requirement of creating the native Date, then
calling the ApplySpecialProps method.
As always, thanks for the help!
-joe
On May 20, 12:23 pm, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Heya,
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
The problem with that as written is that it creates separate isEaster
and isLaborDay functions for every single instance you create, each of
which eats memory:
var a = specialDateFactory();
var b = specialDateFactory();
alert(a.isEaster === b.isEaster); // false
You can avoid that:
var MoreDateFunctions = {
isEaster: function () {return ...},
isLaborDay: function () {return ...}};
function specialDateFactory() {
return Object.extend(new Date(), MoreDateFunctions);
// Or, without Prototype's Object.extend:
// var fname, that;
// that = new Date();
// for (fname in MoreDateFunctions) {
// that[fname] = MoreDateFunctions[fname];
// }
// return that;
}
...but I'm not seeing much benefit at that point. I suppose it means
you haven't modified the Date prototype.
(BTW: Anyone tempted to create an ExtendedDate object using a Date
object as its prototype, think again, for some reason the spec
specifically disallows it in Section 15.9.5, and Firefox [and probably
others] implements the limitation.)
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On May 20, 4:07 pm, P. Douglas Reeder reeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
You can get more sophisticated - creating a prototype object for
special dates, with the functions defined on it, and using closures to
protect it, but I can't write that off the top of my head...
On May 20, 7:50 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that
Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using
(pretend) classes makes it harder not easier.
Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object
that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date,
rather than modifying a built-in object prototype,
Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's
prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point.
(I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's
Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths
that JS has. )
Colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
Thanks to all for your feedback. i think though, that some of the
focus has remained on adding new *methods* to the Date object. That's
easy enough, as in my first sample. However, i'm trying to add
properties to the object that obtain a value when a new Date is
constructed.
var myDate = new Date();
alert(myDate.isEaster); // Alerts 'true' or 'false'
alert(myDate.isLaborDay); // Alerts 'true' or 'false'
etc.
i realize that these property values would still need to be obtained
from return values of functions. That's why my second sample includes
the _isEaster methods, but also has this.isEaster receiving the
return value of the _isEaster method.
Consider:
if (myDate.isEaster){alert('Happy Easter');
vs
if (myDate.isEaster()){alert('Happy Easter');
Any time i want to utilize, compare, etc. that the date is or is not
Easter, i can either have a quick-access boolean property, or a
lengthy calculation from a method.
Obviously these are simplified examples, but when applied to the
bigger concept of reserved dates, and that these reservations could
overlap (isEaster isMyBirthday, for instance), property testing
could reduce some decent calculation overhead.
However, if it can't be done, it can't be done. i suppose i can simply
add a second line after constructing a new Date:
Date.prototype.ApplySpecialDateProps = function(){
this.isEaster = (function(d){
// Calculate something from d
return ... })(this),
this.isLaborDay = (function(d){
// Calculate something from d
return ... })(this),
...
}
var myDate = new Date();
myDate.ApplySpecialDateProps();
i was just hoping to get the special properties to be part of the Date
object's construction.
-joe
On May 20, 12:23 pm, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Heya,
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
The problem with that as written is that it creates separate isEaster
and isLaborDay functions for every single instance you create, each of
which eats memory:
var a = specialDateFactory();
var b = specialDateFactory();
alert(a.isEaster === b.isEaster); // false
You can avoid that:
var MoreDateFunctions = {
isEaster: function () {return ...},
isLaborDay: function () {return ...}};
function specialDateFactory() {
return Object.extend(new Date(), MoreDateFunctions);
// Or, without Prototype's Object.extend:
// var fname, that;
// that = new Date();
// for (fname in MoreDateFunctions) {
// that[fname] = MoreDateFunctions[fname];
// }
// return that;
}
...but I'm not seeing much benefit at that point. I suppose it means
you haven't modified the Date prototype.
(BTW: Anyone tempted to create an ExtendedDate object using a Date
object as its prototype, think again, for some reason the spec
specifically disallows it in Section 15.9.5, and Firefox [and probably
others] implements the limitation.)
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On May 20, 4:07 pm, P. Douglas Reeder reeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
You can get more sophisticated - creating a prototype object for
special dates, with the functions defined on it, and using closures to
protect it, but I can't write that off the top of my head...
On May 20, 7:50 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that
Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using
(pretend) classes makes it harder not easier.
Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object
that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date,
rather than modifying a built-in object prototype,
Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's
prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point.
(I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's
Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths
that JS has. )
Colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
Heya,
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
The problem with that as written is that it creates separate isEaster
and isLaborDay functions for every single instance you create, each of
which eats memory:
var a = specialDateFactory();
var b = specialDateFactory();
alert(a.isEaster === b.isEaster); // false
You can avoid that:
var MoreDateFunctions = {
isEaster: function () {return ...},
isLaborDay: function () {return ...}
};
function specialDateFactory() {
return Object.extend(new Date(), MoreDateFunctions);
// Or, without Prototype's Object.extend:
// var fname, that;
// that = new Date();
// for (fname in MoreDateFunctions) {
// that[fname] = MoreDateFunctions[fname];
// }
// return that;
}
...but I'm not seeing much benefit at that point. I suppose it means
you haven't modified the Date prototype.
(BTW: Anyone tempted to create an ExtendedDate object using a Date
object as its prototype, think again, for some reason the spec
specifically disallows it in Section 15.9.5, and Firefox [and probably
others] implements the limitation.)
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On May 20, 4:07 pm, P. Douglas Reeder reeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
You can get more sophisticated - creating a prototype object for
special dates, with the functions defined on it, and using closures to
protect it, but I can't write that off the top of my head...
On May 20, 7:50 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that
Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using
(pretend) classes makes it harder not easier.
Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object
that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date,
rather than modifying a built-in object prototype,
Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's
prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point.
(I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's
Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths
that JS has. )
Colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Adding properties to native objects
One last note barring any huge revelations:
T.J.'s factory suggestion was almost exactly right. His code as-is
adds the methods to my customized Date. However, since i want
properties of the same name that receive the return values of those
methods, i MUST use the non-Object#extend version, as such:
var SpecialDateProps = {
isEaster:function(){ return ... },
etc.
};
function DateFactory(){
var fName, that = new Date();
for (fName in SpecialDateProps)
that[fName] = SpecialDateProps[fName](); // Note calling the
fName's function.
return that;
}
Thanks again!
-joe t.
On May 20, 1:12 pm, joe t. thooke...@gmail.com wrote:
T.J.,
i think my last post was at least somewhat in line with your
suggestion. i just hadn't fully read and absorbed yours yet.
i will try using that factory approach. If i'm reading it right, it
handles the two-line requirement of creating the native Date, then
calling the ApplySpecialProps method.
As always, thanks for the help!
-joe
On May 20, 12:23 pm, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Heya,
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
The problem with that as written is that it creates separate isEaster
and isLaborDay functions for every single instance you create, each of
which eats memory:
var a = specialDateFactory();
var b = specialDateFactory();
alert(a.isEaster === b.isEaster); // false
You can avoid that:
var MoreDateFunctions = {
isEaster: function () {return ...},
isLaborDay: function () {return ...}};
function specialDateFactory() {
return Object.extend(new Date(), MoreDateFunctions);
// Or, without Prototype's Object.extend:
// var fname, that;
// that = new Date();
// for (fname in MoreDateFunctions) {
// that[fname] = MoreDateFunctions[fname];
// }
// return that;
}
...but I'm not seeing much benefit at that point. I suppose it means
you haven't modified the Date prototype.
(BTW: Anyone tempted to create an ExtendedDate object using a Date
object as its prototype, think again, for some reason the spec
specifically disallows it in Section 15.9.5, and Firefox [and probably
others] implements the limitation.)
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On May 20, 4:07 pm, P. Douglas Reeder reeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to use Crockford's factory pattern, rather than using any
sort of constructor:
function specialDateFactory() {
var that = new Date();
that.isEaster = function () {return ...},
that.isLaborDay = function () {return ...},
return that;
}
You can get more sophisticated - creating a prototype object for
special dates, with the functions defined on it, and using closures to
protect it, but I can't write that off the top of my head...
On May 20, 7:50 am, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On May 19, 9:26 pm, ColinFine colin.f...@pace.com wrote:
This is a case when you really truly want just the facilities that
Javascript provides (prototypes rather than classes), and using
(pretend) classes makes it harder not easier.
Yes, although some may argue that it is better to create a new object
that has the required methods and leverages the methods of Date,
rather than modifying a built-in object prototype,
Fair comment. But you are still talking about using Javascript's
prototype, rather than inventing classes. That was my point.
(I wouldn't have made this remark before I read Crockford's
Javascript: The Good Parts - that's opened my eyes to the strengths
that JS has. )
Colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: fatal error on the page under IE7 when a script can't run till its end = scriptaculous scripts stop to work
To complete my previous post , it seeam that when you use
Effect.multiple([elt_id, ...]) and when one of the elt_id is not found
on the page a fatal js error is thrown on IE. This error on the page
disable all other scriptaculous functions you could launch after that
on the same webpage.
Doesn't occur on Firefox. Any help appreciated :-) !!
Nico
On 20 mai, 04:08, itkin nicolas.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm deseperately looking for the solution of a weird behavior on IE7.
I've this function, executed dynamically from a rjs (ror) template.
Basically it slides down a list of produts labels, one after this
other, in a wave maner.
function slideLabelsDown(labelsContainer){
Effect.multiple($(labelsContainer).select('.sale_item_label'),
Effect.SlideDown, {
transition:Effect.Transitions.spring,
speed:0.25,
duration:5});
$('top_sale_item_labels_ajax_wrapper').fade({delay:0.3,duration:
0.2});
}
Well the duration of this script is supposed to be 5 seconds, but when
you click on some other link before the function ends, you got the
following error only on IE :
Line 699
Char 7
'element.down()' is null or not an object
As far as I understand it doesn't find the current element to slide
down because it has been dynamically removed with all the page sub
content
So the error raises and then scipt aculous framework just stop
working. This is really problematic for me since i use its functions
intensivelly in quite every ajax call .
Does anybody know how to prevent or handle this kind exception?? try
{} catch(){} doesn't work ..
Thanks in advance !!
Nicolas
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
