Side navigation
#10997 closed bug (wontfix)
Opened December 10, 2011 08:28PM UTC
Closed January 18, 2012 03:39AM UTC
Remove/deprecate/document sneak-dependency methods
| Reported by: | dmethvin | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | None |
| Component: | misc | Version: | 1.7.1 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
Some methods are ambiguous, creating "sneak" dependencies that are going to confuse Closure Compiler and also thwart manual attempts to reduce size.
jQuery.fn.load()- Either needs event.js or ajax.js; only the arguments tell for sure. Can we deprecate/remove one or both to make it unambiguous? At minimum need to document effect of its use.
jQuery.fn.show(), jQuery.fn.hide()- Needs effects.js only if a speed is provided. Can we deprecate the animation-related ones? Again, we at least need to document it.
As a starting point I suggest we deprecate the event behavior of .load() and the animate behavior of .show()/.hide(), removing them in 2.0. Perhaps we could put in a jQuery.error() if .load() detects it's being called all event-like.
Are there other examples?
Attachments (0)
Change History (9)
Changed December 10, 2011 08:29PM UTC by comment:1
| component: | unfiled → misc |
|---|---|
| keywords: | → 1.8-discuss |
| milestone: | None → 1.8 |
| priority: | undecided → low |
| status: | new → open |
Changed December 10, 2011 08:41PM UTC by comment:2
With jQuery.fn.show/jQuery.fn.hide they are "members" of effects.js... Maybe I've misunderstood?
Changed December 10, 2011 08:49PM UTC by comment:3
Sorry, what I meant was that for the no-args case they are just css display changers, but for all other cases they need .animate(). It would be good to be able to keep the simple show/hide but not require all of effects. Or maybe we should tell people who want to do that to use classes and avoid show/hide unless they want to include effects.js?
Changed December 10, 2011 09:16PM UTC by comment:4
+0, I don't think this can actually happen. Not having to included effects for the simple usage of show/hide would be nice and .load() is unfortunately ambiguous, but backwards compatibility will always be important. Also, I thought John said there was never going to be a 2.0.
Changed December 13, 2011 02:48PM UTC by comment:5
| description: | Some methods are ambiguous, creating "sneak" dependencies that are going to confuse Closure Compiler and also thwart manual attempts to reduce size. \ \ * `jQuery.fn.load()` - Either needs event.js or ajax.js; only the arguments tell for sure. Can we deprecate/remove one or both to make it unambiguous? At minimum need to document effect of its use. \ \ * `jQuery.fn.show(), jQuery.fn.hide()` - Needs effects.js only if a speed is provided. Can we deprecate the animation-related ones? Again, we at least need to document it. \ \ As a starting point I suggest we deprecate the event behavior of .load() and the animate behavior of .show()/.hide(), removing them in 2.0. Perhaps we could put in a jQuery.error() if .load() detects it's being called all event-like. \ \ Are there other examples? \ → Some methods are ambiguous, creating "sneak" dependencies that are going to confuse Closure Compiler and also thwart manual attempts to reduce size.\ \ * `jQuery.fn.load()` - Either needs event.js or ajax.js; only the arguments tell for sure. Can we deprecate/remove one or both to make it unambiguous? At minimum need to document effect of its use.\ \ * `jQuery.fn.show(), jQuery.fn.hide()` - Needs effects.js only if a speed is provided. Can we deprecate the animation-related ones? Again, we at least need to document it.\ \ As a starting point I suggest we deprecate the event behavior of .load() and the animate behavior of .show()/.hide(), removing them in 2.0. Perhaps we could put in a jQuery.error() if .load() detects it's being called all event-like.\ \ Are there other examples?\ |
|---|
+1, animated show/hide always looked bad - overloaded load is just bad.
Changed December 13, 2011 04:28PM UTC by comment:6
+0, Let's investigate properly first... also, I'd like to see if we could use Closure to help here.
Changed December 15, 2011 07:27AM UTC by comment:7
-1
Changed December 19, 2011 05:36PM UTC by comment:8
| description: | Some methods are ambiguous, creating "sneak" dependencies that are going to confuse Closure Compiler and also thwart manual attempts to reduce size.\ \ * `jQuery.fn.load()` - Either needs event.js or ajax.js; only the arguments tell for sure. Can we deprecate/remove one or both to make it unambiguous? At minimum need to document effect of its use.\ \ * `jQuery.fn.show(), jQuery.fn.hide()` - Needs effects.js only if a speed is provided. Can we deprecate the animation-related ones? Again, we at least need to document it.\ \ As a starting point I suggest we deprecate the event behavior of .load() and the animate behavior of .show()/.hide(), removing them in 2.0. Perhaps we could put in a jQuery.error() if .load() detects it's being called all event-like.\ \ Are there other examples?\ → Some methods are ambiguous, creating "sneak" dependencies that are going to confuse Closure Compiler and also thwart manual attempts to reduce size. \ \ * `jQuery.fn.load()` - Either needs event.js or ajax.js; only the arguments tell for sure. Can we deprecate/remove one or both to make it unambiguous? At minimum need to document effect of its use. \ \ * `jQuery.fn.show(), jQuery.fn.hide()` - Needs effects.js only if a speed is provided. Can we deprecate the animation-related ones? Again, we at least need to document it. \ \ As a starting point I suggest we deprecate the event behavior of .load() and the animate behavior of .show()/.hide(), removing them in 2.0. Perhaps we could put in a jQuery.error() if .load() detects it's being called all event-like. \ \ Are there other examples? \ |
|---|
-1
Changed January 18, 2012 03:39AM UTC by comment:9
| keywords: | 1.8-discuss |
|---|---|
| milestone: | 1.8 → None |
| resolution: | → wontfix |
| status: | open → closed |
Voted down, but I may do some of this as we investigate the Closure integration.