I actually agree strongly with you: plugins should be chainable. But
not all are (even some jQuery methods are not, like the ones that
return text [val(), html() etc. without arguments]).
On Dec 12, 9:47 pm, "Brian Cherne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to disagree with Danny's first statement... if you're going to create
> a jQuery plug-in (re-usable and useful to all) then it's best to follow the
> convention of returning the elements it's acted on. If you want it to return
> something else (or nothing) don't create a plug-in -- instead create a
> separate global object w/methods.
>
> I haven't time to write the innards of the plug-in approach, but I'd
> recommend a syntax like:
>
> $('#photo').photo( method, settings ).css(...).attr(...);
>
> var createSettings = { src:uri };
> var cropSettings = {width:w,height:h};
>
> $('#photo').photo( 'create', createSettings ).photo( 'crop', cropSettings
> ).show();
>
> Chaining is one of the most powerful features of jQuery... let it work for
> you!
>
> Brian.
>
> On 12/12/07, Danny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you have no reason to chain your plugin (something like $
> > ('#photo').photo(...).css(...).attr(...) then having it return a
> > different object makes sense. But then, why put it in the jQuery
> > namespace at all? 'return new smaon.photo(...) makes as much sense.
> > Danny
>
> > On Dec 12, 10:38 am, Smaon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thank you for your answer Danny.
>
> > > I'm currently trying this way:
>
> > > jQuery.fn.photo = function (...) {
> > > var canvas = $(this).get(0);
> > > return new jQuery.photo(canvas, settings);
>
> > > }
>
> > > jQuery.twistMap = function(canvas, settings){
> > > //create code
>
> > > this.crop = function(){
> > > ......
> > > }
>
> > > }
>
> > > usable like this:
>
> > > var photo = $("#photo").photo(...);
> > > photo.crop();
>
> > > What do you think? For me, while not being perfect, it seems more or
> > > less ok...
>
> > > PS: BTW, it there a way to put clean code in this discussion group?
