Two days ago I closed tickets #7497 and #7376. Both sample scripts exhibited
the same behavior in IE: after some interaction they fail because
Element.Method methods are invoked on an *extended* node, but still are not
found.
This took me a while to figure out (thanks Joe for Firebug Lite) - suppo
If setting the expando to a function, rather than a boolean, prevents
it from persisting when it should not, then that's fantastic. It'd
also solve the similar problem where cloned nodes say they're extended
but are not. Write a patch!
Andrew
On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTE
*cough* *cough*, EventPublisher... *cough* *cough* links provided in this
thread... *cough* *cough* provides everything you're looking for *cough*
*cough* lightweight
*cough*
On 2/8/07, Christian Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> hi seth,
>
> > It's really *intended* for synthetic eve
We switched to an older version of json.js
Thanks for the replacement code and the insight!
On Feb 7, 3:21 pm, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NL wrote:
> > When loading both Prototype Release 1.5 and the The open source code
> > of a JSON parser and JSON stringifier library (http://w
Hello everyone,
I have a little trouble porting stuff to from prototype 1.4 to 1.5.
Some has to do with ticket #3592, where the results of filters on
enumerables are discussed. As long as this patch is not accepted I
could just patch the behaviour for myself, overloading Enumerables
reject
Dude, you should see a doctor..
On Feb 8, 9:06 am, "Ryan Gahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *cough* *cough*, EventPublisher... *cough* *cough* links provided in this
> thread... *cough* *cough* provides everything you're looking for *cough*
> *cough* lightweight
>
> *cough*
--~--~-~
:)
I'm already seeing one. A LOVE doctor...
On 2/8/07, Colin Mollenhour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Dude, you should see a doctor..
>
> On Feb 8, 9:06 am, "Ryan Gahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *cough* *cough*, EventPublisher... *cough* *cough* links provided in
> this
> > thread... *cou
Hi all,
I'm new to the group. I've searched for a topic like this and didn't
find any, so here are my thoughts about Prototype's Hash
implementation.
Reading the API, i saw that whenever you add a key to a Hash, that has
the same name of a already existing property in its prototype, that
propert
Good work! IE is one crazy mofo...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send e
On Feb 8, 6:26 pm, Alexander Presber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now my question is: What is the advantage of the new Hash
> implementation? Why did Class.create not suffice? I can see added
> complexity but no real gain, since Enumerable is not really in the
> prototype chain of Hash, it
Apologies -- I didn't fully understand this question until I re-read
#3592.
I agree that we need to apply this patch and will raise some hell
forthwith. In the meantime, the issue is specific to Hash, so can't
you do...
Object.extend(Hash.prototype, {
reject: function() { /* ... */ },
findAll:
Am 08.02.2007 um 18:24 schrieb Andrew Dupont:
>
> Apologies -- I didn't fully understand this question until I re-read
> #3592.
>
> I agree that we need to apply this patch and will raise some hell
> forthwith. In the meantime, the issue is specific to Hash, so can't
> you do...
>
> Object.extend
> With prototype-based inheritance they all point to
> the same copy. It's a big win for memory usage. Read this interview
> with Dean Edwards: http://snook.ca/archives/writing/an_interview_wi/
I see your point. But this is not exactly what happens here.
We do indeed save memory by putting the
On 2/8/07, Alexander Presber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> How is the state of affairs in introducing Dean Edwards Base
> inheritance to prototype? There are some tickets on inheritance, but
> one especially for that?
I tried to introduce Base to Prototype once. It was when my level of
JavaScr
On 2/8/07, O Rapouso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Reading the API, i saw that whenever you add a key to a Hash, that has
> the same name of a already existing property in its prototype, that
> property is lost to the new value, obviously. You can see that happen
> in the API's example.
Your i
Hi Mislav,
I think both implementations do the same thing. The only problem with
mines is that I didn't put a getter method in it, and I agree with you
on that. But with a getter method, both do the same thing. The "set"
method from Hash.Safe is my "put" method.
Although my implementation might
JSCP (Javascript Client Page) is a lightweight library based on
Prototype.
I wrote it months ago, just put it on sourceforget.net(https://
sourceforge.net/projects/jscpage/). Because of sourceforge's problem,
currently i can not upload html web pages, so you can only download
release file, see doc
> Colin, thanks for pointing out that my observer array will slow things
> down in many cases. I really like your implementation, especially the
> way you keep a different EventCache object. One thing I wonder, though,
> if like you said your function returns an index--an array index could be
> p
I should point out that made the return value a simple int rather than
an object with a stopObserving function.
It would be quite easy to add, simply change (in EventCache.observe):
return this.cacheIndex;
to:
return {stopObserving: EventCache.stopObserving.bind(this,
this.cacheIndex)};
But,
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Alexander Presber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How is the state of affairs in introducing Dean Edwards Base
> > inheritance to prototype? There are some tickets on inheritance,
> > but one especially for that?
>
> I tried to intro
Colin Mollenhour wrote:
> But, I don't think the overhead of a bind call and the storage of an
> object with a function for EACH event observed is justifiable, just to
> have the convenience of:
> handle.stopObserving();
> rather than:
> Event.stopObserving(handle);
Colin, your patch is superb
> I've been doing a lot of research on the subject of Event registration.
> It made me question: do we really need to detach listeners in IE on
> unload? Unless anyone knows for sure, I plan to test.
According to what I've read primarily here:
http://javascript.crockford.com/memory/leak.html
it
22 matches
Mail list logo
