On 30/01/2008, sharosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
got you hear about prototype from a friend of mine. im a usablity
designer so im more intersted in seeing protype in action is there
some demo's or samples put up in the website, cas i was trying to find
out in the website . i would
hi
got you hear about prototype from a friend of mine. im a usablity
designer so im more intersted in seeing protype in action is there
some demo's or samples put up in the website, cas i was trying to find
out in the website . i would really apperciate if you can help me
with some URLS for
thanks richard for your inputs. scriptacouls has some really
amazing works in it
sharosh
On Jan 30, 3:22 pm, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 30/01/2008, sharosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
got you hear about prototype from a friend of mine. im a usablity
designer so
And I've managed to misspell Starting in the title (as Staring...)
in both posts, ftl.
Tobie - what did you mean (in other thread) about doing the work in a
closure. Which work were you referring to?
On Jan 31, 1:38 am, Tobie Langel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify, I suggested
[As suggested by Tobie - reposted from
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs/browse_thread/thread/a7edd31205e69472]
I've started a path to reimplementing commonly reused global names
with a patch (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10958)
This patch is for $ function. I've giving
Just to clarify, I suggested reposting the thread here, not providing
a noConflict mode ;)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
Well, there's more elegant ways to handle that than converting each
and every call to a global than the one you're using.
Using a closure could be a solution.
Dean's got an interesting system in base2 for that kind of stuff:
http://base2.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/base2/Package.js
My driving reason is to let jquery developers use unittest for their
unit tests as I like it a lot as a test suite. Without noConflict, the
jquery app will need to use its noConflict setup, rather than
Prototype using its noConflict setup.
Fixing prototypes critical namespacing conflicts - the
Is it worth the extra bloat so that some people can use noConflict? I
don't think so, most people never use noConflict. People who want to
have multiple frameworks play together should think twice.
Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't want to stimulate people into
mixing frameworks.
Alternately, can I have permission to make unittest independent of
prototype? :P
I did look at it _very briefly_ and realised that I just needed to
cleanup the use of $.
I don't mind Prototype.$ as its namespaced version. Its short and if
there is no driving cause for complete refactoring to
On 30 jan, 17:22, Dr Nic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternately, can I have permission to make unittest independent of
prototype? :P
I did look at it _very briefly_ and realised that I just needed to
cleanup the use of $.
If multi framework unittests is what you want, you should have a look
Btw, isn't there a site for sharing such small extensions for prototype? I
have lots of them, and I understand most will never make it into prototype
core library.
I'd like to see it make it into the framework but if I have to add it to
extensions.js (my 'extra' methods for prototype) then
artemy;
scripteka!
http://scripteka.com/
On Jan 31, 2008 6:34 AM, Artemy Tregoubenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, isn't there a site for sharing such small extensions for prototype? I
have lots of them, and I understand most will never make it into prototype
core library.
I'd like to
thanks for this link, but I thought scripteka was for quite large
extensions, while mine are mostly functions less then 10 lines of code
artemy;
scripteka!
http://scripteka.com/
On Jan 31, 2008 6:34 AM, Artemy Tregoubenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Btw, isn't there a site for
Lack of namespace management is thing to be fixed, not protected as
sacred.
Whether its unittest or a widget that needs to coshare JavaScript-land
with other widgets built ontop of other frameworks, I think it should
be possible, not impossible.
Nic
On Jan 31, 2:50 am, Nick Stakenburg [EMAIL
/is thing to be fixed/is something to be fixed/
sorry
On Jan 31, 7:53 am, Dr Nic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lack of namespace management is thing to be fixed, not protected as
sacred.
Whether its unittest or a widget that needs to coshare JavaScript-land
with other widgets built ontop of
Sure. Handling namespacing inside of the global scope is one issue,
and it's pretty simple to deal with... but what about extended
prototypes?
How am I supposed to know that some other script / lib / framework,
hasn't extended Function.prototype.bind with something else, something
that would
Right so there are some frameworks that will never work together, and
there are some frameworks that could work together with a little
love'n'care to prototypejs.
Resolving the every framework has its own $ operator conflict is a
big win, and doesn't mean prototype needs to plan to be
Maybe just put them up on a blog or similar and link people from
rails-spinoffs then? I'm quite keen to see what you have.
This is definitely not core discussion tho.
On Jan 31, 2008 9:49 AM, Artemy Tregoubenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks for this link, but I thought scripteka was for
Hello,
Please direct future questions to the email sipplied in the
readme_first.txt.
If you are referring to the base 62 encoded x_packed.js versions,
that appears to be part
of Dean Edwards' Packers code and I would not remove it.
- JD
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
I really suggest usig the varshrink versions and gzipping them.
You get the smallest file size most of the time that way and no
clientside delay for js decoding.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
But it doesn't have to be the $ feature - this can be cleanly
noconflict-proofed; giving some useful benefits.
I'm still keen to see this refactoring as I think its a Good Thing.
On Jan 31, 9:17 am, Tobie Langel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right so there are some frameworks that will never work
22 matches
Mail list logo
