On 7/1/05, Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've both used and extended the prototype library. I also really like the programming style it offers.
I even think the Selenium code could benefit (in form of maintainability) from extending prototype's language level constructs. It's a small library and wouldn't incur any significant overhead. There are several other OSS libraries out there that buildupon the fundamentals in prototype. Rico (http://openrico.org/home.page) is one of them.
+1 tabs are soo 90's
Actually, the Protorype project uses this approach. prototype.js consists of several js files (http://dev.conio.net/repos/prototype/src/) that are concatenated into one for distribution (using a little ruby script - http://dev.conio.net/repos/prototype/Rakefile
).
I think Selenium should adopt it too. It keeps source code more managable for both developers and users.
Aslak
I have little idea of what best practice is in the _javascript_ world, but
I wonder if we could clean up the core _javascript_ code a little, perhaps
even introduce some coding standards, etc.
I've been perusing "Prototype" - a _javascript_ library that supports much
AJAX goodness, and really like what I see:
* Use of top-level objects (often empty) as namespaces
* A Class.create() function that makes class declarations seem more
natural
* A Ruby-like "extend" function for mixins
I've both used and extended the prototype library. I also really like the programming style it offers.
See http://prototype.conio.net/dist/prototype-1.2.0.js ... I'm not
suggesting we integrate it, just wondering if people like the
coding-style used.
I even think the Selenium code could benefit (in form of maintainability) from extending prototype's language level constructs. It's a small library and wouldn't incur any significant overhead. There are several other OSS libraries out there that buildupon the fundamentals in prototype. Rico (http://openrico.org/home.page) is one of them.
What do you think of introducing a top-level "Selenium" namespace, and
pushing BrowserBot etc underneath it? It might mean pushing the
existing "Selenium" object down a level, though - "Selenium.API"?
Can we agree on no TABs in code/tests, or is that contentious?
+1 tabs are soo 90's
Also, I was chatting offline with David Kemp and Daz Deboer about the
possibility of reducing the number of Selenium _javascript_ files ... at
least for distribution, if not for source-control. I suggested a
"selenium-fitrunner.js", with "selenium-core.js" containing everything
else, which would make deployment easier. We could even version-control
it as separate files, and combine it in a build step. I don't think I
convinced anyone :-(
Actually, the Protorype project uses this approach. prototype.js consists of several js files (http://dev.conio.net/repos/prototype/src/) that are concatenated into one for distribution (using a little ruby script - http://dev.conio.net/repos/prototype/Rakefile
).
I think Selenium should adopt it too. It keeps source code more managable for both developers and users.
Aslak
--
cheers, MikeW http://www.dogbiscuit.org/mdub/
_______________________________________________
Selenium-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.public.thoughtworks.org/mailman/listinfo/selenium-devel
_______________________________________________ Selenium-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.public.thoughtworks.org/mailman/listinfo/selenium-devel
