- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:03:27 -0700
- 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 UTC