If you are going to integrate more tightly with a 3rd party,
I'd
prefer prototype over moo.fx. I've never used moo.fx.
From my
understanding moo.fx provides for effects. Personally, I
don't have
much use for fancy effects. I do have use for the things
prototype
provides. If I needed effects, I'd either write them
myself, or use
moo.fx, or scriptaculous. However, to date, I've simply
never needed
either of them.
One suggestion is to publish a base behaviour.js, and then
publish
patches that allow for a tighter integration with 3rd party
of
choice... that way people could plug and play as they feel
fit in
addition to getting the benefits of tighter integration. If
you
choose this route, I also suggest recruiting maintainers for
an
"integration branch/patch" from the community.
This obviously raises the complexity of the whole thing, but
I'd
prefer either this approach, or keeping behaviour agnostic
of these
other convenience scripts.
BTW, Sergio, I _really_ appreciate your documentation of
prototype.js.
(I just noticed that moo.fx also relies on prototype.
However, I'm
leaving my comments because it's concievable the same
argument could
effectively be applied using different examples.)
Ben West
On 2/14/06, Ben Nolan <bnolan gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone tried using Behaviour v2?
>
> I've been using it to build the fantastic ZOPTO.COM
(not to be confused
> with the even more awesome ZOMBOCOM) - and I've found
it to be pretty good.
>
> Some of the things I'm looking at putting into 2.1:
>
> * Compatibility with moo.fx (have to add one or two
functions to the Class
> model
> * Built-in support for moo.ajax (so that when you do
> moo.ajax(...,update:$('#xyz')) - it automatically
applies behaviours to the
> newly added model.
> * Maybe mod moo.ajax to auto-run any script/>
blocks that are included in
> HTML fragments inserted into the dom.
>
> Any comments / other requests?
>
> Ben
>
|