David Kemp wrote:
Are you also suggesting that we copy their code for
Class.create() and Object.extend() ?
Class.create(), anyway. And I like the more structured class-definition
style, e.g.
MyClass.prototype = {
method1: function(arg1, arg2) { ... },
method2: function() { ... }
}
Would combining them in a build step really help users? After all,
Selenium is not intended to be a library that others can include in
their own applications (or are there people out there doing exactly that?)
No, you're right; when pressed, I can't come up with a really convincing
reason to bundle everything together.
While on the topic of the source file structure, htmlutils.js should
either be renamed selenium-utils.js (as it contains non-html stuff in
it), or should have the non-html stuff shifted out of it
+1
--
cheers, MikeW http://www.dogbiscuit.org/mdub/
_______________________________________________
Selenium-devel mailing list
Selenium-devel@lists.public.thoughtworks.org
http://lists.public.thoughtworks.org/mailman/listinfo/selenium-devel
