Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Superior jQuery plugin template

websanova.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Superior jQuery plugin template

#11

Post by deadbeef84 »

robin_reala wrote: post #9
deadbeef84 wrote: post #6

Here's my thoughts: 1. Ability to modify default settings It is sometimes nice to set the global defaults. 2. Ability to expose methods. A nice way of calling the someFunc() would be nice. I guess you can do it like this: $(...).data('_wTooltip').someFunc(); but using the data() seems a bit hacky. 3. Use settings from html5 data-attribute, ie data-tooltip='{"foo":"baar"}'. Not really necessary for the example plugin,…

Not sure you should be (ab)using data- attributes like that. They’re already a key/value pair so you markup your data as

If you have many options, they are easier to retrieve, just call .data('tooltip') and jQuery will do the parsing of the object. Using separate attributes you would have to call .data() for every attribute. Anyway, I guess any of the two methods would be fine! :-)

Re: Superior jQuery plugin template

#13

Post by axiak »

rduchnik wrote: post #8
ftyhgjn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Untested' and 'superior' are not happy bedfellows!

lol, just a typo ;)

What happens if I type:

    $("blah").wTooltip(new String("color"));
In my recent jquery plugin I considered doing a typeof check myself but decided against it since it was too brittle. I instead checked to see if the options was === what I expected it to be first.

Re: Superior jQuery plugin template

#14

Post by rduchnik »

axiak wrote: post #13
rduchnik wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, just a typo ;)

What happens if I type: $("blah").wTooltip(new String("color")); In my recent jquery plugin I considered doing a typeof check myself but decided against it since it was too brittle. I instead checked to see if the options was === what I expected it to be first.

Well, I think this is getting a little nit picky. I would rather have a smaller footprint for my plugin then putting a bunch of checks like this in. I don't think I've ever passed in a string that way, that would seem to me like a very rare condition.
Post reply on HN