I don't have a problem with neither really. I personally love
Prototype as it is. It's just that sometimes I wish I could just
cherry-pick bits out of it when I don't need the whole library. And
since my knowledge of Javascript is decent but limited (I'm definitely
no core Prototype developer) I'v
On May 1, 1:42 am, Bertrand wrote:
> Well, actually, my managers are pushing for self-contained javascript
> code (trying to get rid of all the library calls, which isn't
> necessarily a good idea, but I have to abide).
>
> So I ended up using a DOM-compliant version using createElement,
> crea
On Apr 30, 11:54 am, Bertrand wrote:
> Because there's a reason why Prototype, jQuery and the likes have such
> success. It lies in the fact that the developers are very talented and
> provide good code. Unfortunately, I'm kind of new to the whole
Success doesn't always mean quality. Quality i
|| position == 'after') childNodes.reverse();
> childNodes.each(insert.curry(element));
>
> content.evalScripts.bind(content).defer();
>}
>
>return element;
> },
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bertrand"
> To: "
From: "Bertrand"
To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us"
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:54 PM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Extracting methods from codebase
Because there's a reason why Prototype, jQuery and the likes have such
success. It lies in the fact that the develop
why cant you code your own insert function its not that hard ...
You can probably do it in about 15 lines or so..
Alex
- Original Message -
From: "Bertrand"
To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us"
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:47 PM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty
At very least the code i gave you will allow you to clean up your own
code by subbing document.getElementById() with the $() and i'd say its
pretty damn small
Rick
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Well, actually, my managers are pushing for self-contained javascript
> code
rt function its not that hard ...
> You can probably do it in about 15 lines or so..
>
> Alex
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bertrand"
> To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us"
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:47 PM
> Subject: [Proto-Sc
Hi Walter,
> There was a project getting started late last year called pulpjs that
> was aiming at this problem. It's sort of a port of Prototype with the
> following goals: no global namespace pollution, no extensions of
> native prototypes, and everything is modular and non-dependent. Hav
Well, actually, my managers are pushing for self-contained javascript
code (trying to get rid of all the library calls, which isn't
necessarily a good idea, but I have to abide).
So I ended up using a DOM-compliant version using createElement,
createTextNode and appendChild.
But I'll make sure t
Just sort of curious ... of all the convenience that prototype offers,
why is the only method you "need" is Element.update()?
Anyway, try this...
(function() {
function _$(args) {
this.elements = [];
for (var i = 0, len = args.length; i < len; ++i) {
if (typeof args[i] == 'str
There was a project getting started late last year called pulpjs that
was aiming at this problem. It's sort of a port of Prototype with the
following goals: no global namespace pollution, no extensions of
native prototypes, and everything is modular and non-dependent. Have a
look at their
That would indeed be another interesting way of doing it. The only
problem is that javascript is often used in environments where
filesize is critical. In my case, I only use ONE function from the
library, because I've found it to be th best way to achieve what I
want to do: Element.update.
But b
I'd set up each class or major structure, such as Element, Enumerable,
etc etc as its own file, then define packages such as minimal,
efficient, advanced, ajax...etc. Then in a server side script it will
bundle these files together depending on the package so you could make
a request something li
14 matches
Mail list logo
