Comments on: Wrapping DOM elements for easier cross-browser Javascript http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/ web / programming / javascript / css / html Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:14:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Clay http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Clay Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:59:01 +0000 http://stchur.com/blog2/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/#comment-39 My final wrapper object caches each DOM object. It also accepts multiple arguments, each capable of being an array, a string or a object. The CSS Selector feature would be a nice addition but i'm a little worried about the affect the additional checks would have on performance. Btw the cache feature is discussed in a article by Matt Snider. In the article he compares YUI "YAHOO.util.Dom.get" to Prototype "$". http://mattsnider.com/javascript/prototype-vs-yui-round-2-i-love/ I've found your articles to be quite insightful and I can imagine it is much the same for Gimme. So I will will definately check it out. My final wrapper object caches each DOM object. It also accepts multiple arguments, each capable of being an array, a string or a object. The CSS Selector feature would be a nice addition but i'm a little worried about the affect the additional checks would have on performance.

Btw the cache feature is discussed in a article by Matt Snider. In the article he compares YUI "YAHOO.util.Dom.get" to Prototype "$".
http://mattsnider.com/javascript/prototype-vs-yui-round-2-i-love/

I've found your articles to be quite insightful and I can imagine it is much the same for Gimme. So I will will definately check it out.

]]> By: Stephen Stchur http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Stephen Stchur Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:35:23 +0000 http://stchur.com/blog2/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/#comment-38 Clay, Yeah, that could work. Alternatively, you might be interested to check out my Javascript Library: Gimme. It uses the technique discussed in this article, but goes much further and support many CSS selectors as well: http://gimme.stchur.com for demos or http://codeplex.com/gimme for docs -Steve Clay,

Yeah, that could work. Alternatively, you might be interested to check out my Javascript Library: Gimme. It uses the technique discussed in this article, but goes much further and support many CSS selectors as well: http://gimme.stchur.com for demos or http://codeplex.com/gimme for docs

-Steve

]]> By: Clay http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Clay Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:54:12 +0000 http://stchur.com/blog2/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/#comment-37 After testing Prototype and reading this article I was mulling over whether to adopt this style. I've been hung up on not being able to do $('mydiv').id or $('mydiv').className. I think i'll go with the getEntity() solution you hinted at, closer to the end of your article. After testing Prototype and reading this article I was mulling over whether to adopt this style.

I've been hung up on not being able to do $('mydiv').id or $('mydiv').className. I think i'll go with the getEntity() solution you hinted at, closer to the end of your article.

]]> By: Stephen Stchur http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Stephen Stchur Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:11:38 +0000 http://stchur.com/blog2/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/#comment-36 Clay, It think your best best would be to stick with .id and .className for those two cases (among others). You could access an attribute by calling .getAttribute('id') or .getAttribute('class') but retrieving an attribute that way is not exactly the same as directly referencing a given DOM element's property via dot notation. Most notably, IE has a number of bugs regarding .getAttribute(..) so for DOM elements that expose the property you're interested in, I think the dot notation is going to be a good choice. Clay,

It think your best best would be to stick with .id and .className for those two cases (among others). You could access an attribute by calling .getAttribute('id') or .getAttribute('class') but retrieving an attribute that way is not exactly the same as directly referencing a given DOM element's property via dot notation.

Most notably, IE has a number of bugs regarding .getAttribute(..) so for DOM elements that expose the property you're interested in, I think the dot notation is going to be a good choice.

]]> By: Clay http://blog.stchur.com/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Clay Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:24:45 +0000 http://stchur.com/blog2/2007/01/25/wrapping-dom-elements-for-easier-cross-browser-javascript/#comment-35 Great article. I do have a questions. What's the best way to access properties such as id, className and without the use of getters or setters? Great article. I do have a questions.

What's the best way to access properties such as id, className and without the use of getters or setters?

]]>