[mochikit] Re: Why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion rules?
That's it huh?
No more discussion on this? I guess I am smoking crack...
Jason
-Original Message-
From: mochikit@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason Bunting
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM
To: 'Per Cederberg'; 'MochiKit'
Subject: [mochikit] Re: Why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion
rules?
Per Cederberg wrote:
Well... I think your case here is pretty uncommon. This is because the
__dom__() function is really supposed to create a *new* DOM node.
Otherwise people might run into issues when adding an object twice
into the DOM tree.
Excuse my ignorance, and permit me to ask a few questions so I can explore
this further...
Line item 6 in the DOM Coercion Rules, as posted in the documentation,
states:
6. Objects that have a .dom(node) or .__dom__(node)
method are called with the parent node and their
result is coerced using these rules.
So, perhaps there is some confusion because of the documentation, but I
don't see how my example code violates anything.
I am confused by your statement that Otherwise people might run into
issues
when adding an object twice into the DOM tree - using my example, if
someone were to try to add myWidgetInstance to the DOM twice, the behavior
would be exactly as I would expect it - it is the same instances, and thus
it would only appear once (because the call to __dom__ would return the
same
instance). If the developer doesn't understand that this would happen,
then
they have other problems. Unless they instantiate another instance, there
should only be one.
But sure, there is an inconsistency here. My suggestion would be to
just work around it instead:
removeElement(myWidgetInstance.widgetDomRepresentation);
IMO, that's terrible. It breaks encapsulation because now something that
should be private is made explicitly public. I don't want a workaround, I
want consistency in MochiKit's API.
Actually, other widget libraries tend to use the magic dom property
for storing the root DOM node in the widget. Personally, I'd recommend
using a mixin approach to widgets, just as I've done in the suggested
MochiKit.Widget library:
http://github.com/cederberg/mochikit-
patches/tree/master/MochiKit/Widget.js
I appreciate your comments, and while an API for widget building may
provide
some useful help, it isn't what I am looking for at the moment. The way I
have built widgets up to now (successfully, and for quite a while) is
pretty
much the way my example implies. It works beautifully and is simple enough
to be understood without an entire widget framework (notwithstanding the
fact that some help from using one might eventually be better than my
approach). I would simply like some consistency in the API - the following
functions all use the DOM Coercion Rules:
appendChildNodes
insertSiblingNodesBefore
insertSiblingNodesAfter
createDOM
replaceChildNodes
...
If those do, so should any of the others that expect DOM elements:
removeElement
swapDOM
...
If this is merely work that needs to be done, I would be willing to do it.
I
simply want to see if and why others don't see the inconsistencies that I
do.
Thanks again,
Jason Bunting
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Jason Bunting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if I am up in the night on this or if it is an
oversight,
but
why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion rules in the same way
that
something like appendChildNodes does? Here's some sample code that
illustrates my problem:
function MyWidget() {
var widgetDomRepresentation = DIV({style:border:solid 1px},
Hi!);
var that = this;
connect(widgetDomRepresentation, onclick, function() {
signal(that, removeme);
});
this.__dom__ = function() {
return widgetDomRepresentation;
};
}
var myWidgetInstance = new MyWidget();
connect(myWidgetInstance, removeme, function() {
removeElement(myWidgetInstance); // this
blows
up
});
appendChildNodes(currentDocument().body, myWidgetInstance);
It seems to make little sense that one can append myWidgetInstance to
the
DOM using MochiKit.DOM functions, but can't remove it just as easily.
Am I missing something here?
Jason Bunting
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date:
10/9/2008
9:44 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date: 10/9/2008
9:44 AM
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
MochiKit group.
To post to this
[mochikit] Re: Why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion rules?
If you'd like to fix it then I don't see why the patch would be rejected.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Jason Bunting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's it huh?
No more discussion on this? I guess I am smoking crack...
Jason
-Original Message-
From: mochikit@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason Bunting
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM
To: 'Per Cederberg'; 'MochiKit'
Subject: [mochikit] Re: Why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion
rules?
Per Cederberg wrote:
Well... I think your case here is pretty uncommon. This is because the
__dom__() function is really supposed to create a *new* DOM node.
Otherwise people might run into issues when adding an object twice
into the DOM tree.
Excuse my ignorance, and permit me to ask a few questions so I can explore
this further...
Line item 6 in the DOM Coercion Rules, as posted in the documentation,
states:
6. Objects that have a .dom(node) or .__dom__(node)
method are called with the parent node and their
result is coerced using these rules.
So, perhaps there is some confusion because of the documentation, but I
don't see how my example code violates anything.
I am confused by your statement that Otherwise people might run into
issues
when adding an object twice into the DOM tree - using my example, if
someone were to try to add myWidgetInstance to the DOM twice, the behavior
would be exactly as I would expect it - it is the same instances, and thus
it would only appear once (because the call to __dom__ would return the
same
instance). If the developer doesn't understand that this would happen,
then
they have other problems. Unless they instantiate another instance, there
should only be one.
But sure, there is an inconsistency here. My suggestion would be to
just work around it instead:
removeElement(myWidgetInstance.widgetDomRepresentation);
IMO, that's terrible. It breaks encapsulation because now something that
should be private is made explicitly public. I don't want a workaround, I
want consistency in MochiKit's API.
Actually, other widget libraries tend to use the magic dom property
for storing the root DOM node in the widget. Personally, I'd recommend
using a mixin approach to widgets, just as I've done in the suggested
MochiKit.Widget library:
http://github.com/cederberg/mochikit-
patches/tree/master/MochiKit/Widget.js
I appreciate your comments, and while an API for widget building may
provide
some useful help, it isn't what I am looking for at the moment. The way I
have built widgets up to now (successfully, and for quite a while) is
pretty
much the way my example implies. It works beautifully and is simple enough
to be understood without an entire widget framework (notwithstanding the
fact that some help from using one might eventually be better than my
approach). I would simply like some consistency in the API - the following
functions all use the DOM Coercion Rules:
appendChildNodes
insertSiblingNodesBefore
insertSiblingNodesAfter
createDOM
replaceChildNodes
...
If those do, so should any of the others that expect DOM elements:
removeElement
swapDOM
...
If this is merely work that needs to be done, I would be willing to do it.
I
simply want to see if and why others don't see the inconsistencies that I
do.
Thanks again,
Jason Bunting
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Jason Bunting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if I am up in the night on this or if it is an
oversight,
but
why doesn't removeElement use the DOM Coercion rules in the same way
that
something like appendChildNodes does? Here's some sample code that
illustrates my problem:
function MyWidget() {
var widgetDomRepresentation = DIV({style:border:solid 1px},
Hi!);
var that = this;
connect(widgetDomRepresentation, onclick, function() {
signal(that, removeme);
});
this.__dom__ = function() {
return widgetDomRepresentation;
};
}
var myWidgetInstance = new MyWidget();
connect(myWidgetInstance, removeme, function() {
removeElement(myWidgetInstance); // this
blows
up
});
appendChildNodes(currentDocument().body, myWidgetInstance);
It seems to make little sense that one can append myWidgetInstance to
the
DOM using MochiKit.DOM functions, but can't remove it just as easily.
Am I missing something here?
Jason Bunting
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date:
10/9/2008
9:44 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date: 10/9/2008
9:44 AM
