28 Oct
2010
28 Oct
'10
7:34 p.m.
Hi devs,
I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
checking before logging, in the spirit of
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
Something like :
var XWiki = {
//snip
/**
* console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
*/
log: function(){
if(typeof console != "undefined"){
console.log( Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
}
},
// snip
}
WDYT ?
Jerome
29 Oct
29 Oct
10:02 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal]JavaScript console.log wrapper for our convenience
+1, but out of curiosity..
On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
checking before logging, in the spirit of
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
Something like :
var XWiki = {
//snip
/**
* console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
*/
log: function(){
if(typeof console != "undefined"){
console.log(
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ?
Thanks,
Marius
}
},
// snip
}
WDYT ?
Jerome
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:09 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1, but out of curiosity..
On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Apparently it's a trick to transform the "arguments" array-like object
into an array. See
hhttps://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_functi…
I'm not sure what are the exact limitations of logging an array-like
object versus a real array. In firebug, a visible difference is that
you can expand the array as a whole (you have that little "+" on the
left and then have all array properties and methods) , whereas with an
array-like object you only see it's individual elements (that you can
expand as well, individually), but can't expand the array.
Jerome.
Hi devs,
I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
checking before logging, in the spirit of
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
Something like :
var XWiki = {
//snip
/**
* console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
*/
log: function(){
if(typeof console != "undefined"){
console.log(
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ?
Thanks,
Marius
}
},
// snip
}
WDYT ?
Jerome
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
1:42 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal]JavaScript console.log wrapper for our convenience
On 10/29/2010 12:09 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Marius Dumitru
Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I wasn't aware of this. It's clear now.
+1, but out of curiosity..
On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Apparently it's a trick to transform the "arguments" array-like object
into an array. See Hi devs,
I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
checking before logging, in the spirit of
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
Something like :
var XWiki = {
//snip
/**
* console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
*/
log: function(){
if(typeof console != "undefined"){
console.log(
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ?
I'm not sure what are the exact limitations of logging an array-like
object versus a real array. In firebug, a visible difference is that
you can expand the array as a whole (you have that little "+" on the
left and then have all array properties and methods) , whereas with an
array-like object you only see it's individual elements (that you can
expand as well, individually), but can't expand the array.
Thanks,
Marius
Jerome.
Thanks,
Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs }
},
// snip
}
WDYT ?
Jerome
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5:54 p.m.
Why not simply defining console and console.log() when it is undefined ?
This would avoid the need to think about using a specific wrapper. WDYT ?
Denis
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 13:42, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 10/29/2010 12:09 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Marius Dumitru
Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1, but out of curiosity..
On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Apparently it's a trick to transform the "arguments" array-like object
into an array. See Hi devs,
I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
checking before logging, in the spirit of
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
Something like :
var XWiki = {
//snip
/**
* console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
*/
log: function(){
if(typeof console != "undefined"){
console.log(
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ? hhttps://
developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/…
I wasn't aware of this. It's clear now.
I'm not sure what are the exact limitations of logging an array-like
object versus a real array. In firebug, a visible difference is that
you can expand the array as a whole (you have that little "+" on the
left and then have all array properties and methods) , whereas with an
array-like object you only see it's individual elements (that you can
expand as well, individually), but can't expand the array.
Thanks,
Marius
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Thanks,
Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs }
},
// snip
}
WDYT ?
Jerome
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
6:12 p.m.
That would work, but there is a drawback in this approach too : what
do we define exactly ? If we define console.log, maybe developers will
expect console.warn to be defined as well, and start using it without
checks. And maybe console.profile, next. The problem is there is no
standard cross-browser API ( - or I could not find it), so it will be
hard to draw the line of what we allow and what we don't.
If we define our own API, then it's clear.
Jerome.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
Why not simply defining console and console.log() when
it is undefined ?
This would avoid the need to think about using a specific wrapper. WDYT ?
Denis
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 13:42, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 10/29/2010 12:09 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Marius Dumitru
Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1, but out of curiosity..
On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
> checking before logging, in the spirit of
> http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
>
> Something like :
>
> var XWiki = {
>
> //snip
>
> /**
> * console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
> */
> log: function(){
> if(typeof console != "undefined"){
> console.log( Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ?
Apparently it's a trick to transform the "arguments" array-like object
into an array. See hhttps://
developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/…
I wasn't aware of this. It's clear now.
I'm not sure what are the exact limitations of logging an array-like
object versus a real array. In firebug, a visible difference is that
you can expand the array as a whole (you have that little "+" on the
left and then have all array properties and methods) , whereas with an
array-like object you only see it's individual elements (that you can
expand as well, individually), but can't expand the array.
Thanks,
Marius
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Thanks,
Marius
> }
> },
>
> // snip
>
> }
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Jerome
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
30 Oct
30 Oct
10:54 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 18:12, Jerome Velociter <jerome(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
That would work, but there is a drawback in this
approach too : what
do we define exactly ? If we define console.log, maybe developers will
expect console.warn to be defined as well, and start using it without
checks. And maybe console.profile, next. The problem is there is no
standard cross-browser API ( - or I could not find it), so it will be
hard to draw the line of what we allow and what we don't.
If we define our own API, then it's clear.
Well, it depends what you really want, but building a specific API does not
help when you want to integrate existing libraries or helps new
contributors. The firebug API has became a de-facto standard for logging and
is starting to be implemented natively in many browsers.
So, if you want to be really light, as suggested at the start of this
thread, just do this:
http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
If you want a full featured solution, go a little bit further but do not
reinvent the wheel:
http://benalman.com/projects/javascript-debug-console-log/
These approaches provides for me the best solution for the lowest price, and
use a well known API that every Javascript developer knows. I completely
disagree that having a specific API is clearer, since you need to learn one
more stuff.
I am almost -1 for building such API.
I am +1 for any of the above evolutive solution.
Denis
Jerome.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
Why not simply defining console and console.log()
when it is undefined ?
This would avoid the need to think about using a specific wrapper. WDYT ?
Denis
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 13:42, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/2010 12:09 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> > <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >> +1, but out of curiosity..
> >>
> >> On 10/28/2010 08:34 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to commit a console.log wrapper in xwiki.js that does some
> >>> checking before logging, in the spirit of
> >>> http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/
> >>>
> >>> Something like :
> >>>
> >>> var XWiki = {
> >>>
> >>> //snip
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> * console#log wrapper for your developer own convenience
> >>> */
> >>> log: function(){
> >>> if(typeof console != "undefined"){
> >>
> >>> console.log( Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) );
> >>
> >> What's the point of Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) ?
> >
> > Apparently it's a trick to transform the "arguments" array-like
object
> > into an array. See
>
> > hhttps://
>
developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/…
I wasn't aware of this. It's clear now.
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I'm not sure what are the exact limitations of logging an array-like
object versus a real array. In firebug, a visible difference is that
you can expand the array as a whole (you have that little "+" on the
left and then have all array properties and methods) , whereas with an
array-like object you only see it's individual elements (that you can
expand as well, individually), but can't expand the array.
Thanks,
Marius
Jerome.
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>> }
>> },
>>
>> // snip
>>
>> }
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Jerome
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5070
days inactive
5072
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Jerome Velociter -
Jerome Velociter -
Marius Dumitru Florea