W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: addEventListener naming

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:03:27 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909121903p7ec8700fo385c3f9e6662204f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Jonas-
>
> Jonas Sicking wrote (on 9/12/09 5:42 PM):
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  4. More methods for the developer community to learn. While learning
>>>>  both isn't needed to write code, it is needed to read other peoples
>>>>  code. Ability to read and understand other peoples code is a major
>>>>  strength of the web platform.
>>>
>>>  Agreed, but we already have a proliferation of new shorthand method
>>> names
>>>  through script libs... might it not be better to have some standard
>>> shorter
>>>  names that are better documented?
>>
>> True. If lots of libraries are supplying short-hand names, then it's
>> an indication that there's a real problem that needs to be solved. Do
>> a lot of libraries add shorthands for addEventListener?
>
> Here are some similar constructs:
>
> dojo
>
> <http://www.dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-book-0-9/part-3-programmatic-dijit-and-dojo/functions-used-everywhere/dojo-connect>
>  dojo.connect( targetObj, "event-type", handlerObj );
>
> jQuery
>  <http://docs.jquery.com/Events>
>  bind( type, data, fn )
>  one( type, data, fn )
>  trigger( event, data )
>  triggerHandler( event, data )
>  unbind( type, fn )
>
> Prototype
>  <http://www.prototypejs.org/api/event>
>  $('foo').observe('click', respondToClick);
>
> YUI
>
> <http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/docs/YAHOO.util.Event.html#method_addListener>
>  static Boolean addListener  ( el , sType , fn , obj , overrideContext )
>
> MochiKit
>  <http://www.mochikit.com/doc/html/MochiKit/Signal.html>
>  connect('myID', 'onclick', myClicked);
>  signal('myID', 'onclick', fakeEvent);
>
> qooxdoo
>  <http://demo.qooxdoo.org/current/apiviewer/#qx.event.Registration>
>  addHandler(AbstractEventHandler handler)
>  fireEvent(Object target, String type, Class clazz?, Array args?)
>  ... (a whole lot more)
>
> Ext JS
>  <http://www.extjs.com/products/extcore/manual/>
>  addListener/on
>  removeListener/un
>
> Most of these also add little bits of functionality to
> 'add/removeEventLister()', which is predictable... they each want to make it
> fit their own architecture model, so why stop at a simple renaming?
>
> So, to answer your question: yes and no.  Perhaps if we are going to add a
> new event listener method, we should examine the most common use cases and
> add functionality accordingly, rather than just rename it.

That's indeed what the data seems to indicate.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 02:04:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:03 GMT