The cache returns an object reference, which is assigned to $JQ1 and $JQ2. This means that by line 3, they both point to the same object. So doing #3 and #4, would be the same as doing $(“#mydiv”).remove().show()

Is that what you were asking?

1 : $JQ1 = $$(“#mydiv”)
2: $JQ2 = $$(“#mydiv”)
3: $JQ1.remove() ;
4: $JQ2.show() ; // ??????

Also , if we replace line 2: wit this :

2: $JQ2 = $JQ1

Are we going to do anything different ?

I my case when using the object cache I found myself facing the same annoyances i faced when I used var blah = $(“#blah”). Namely i had to come up with a unique name for the item to be cached and I had to write unique code in the right place to cache an item. In my coding style I found that I was often using some derivation of the class or id as a name. So from a coding standpoint I found tha I was noy improving my code greatly over var = …. I was just using different syntax.

I defense of using a selector as a key I do like how it is more self documenting that some variable name you come up with. Secondly its easy to convert existing code with a simple find and replace because $$ will cache and retrieve, no need to know when and where to cache, you just use it. Again theres always the option to fall back to .cache(key).

With all that said jQuery allows a huge range of approaches to grabbing DOM elements which leads to different approaches to designing that interface between the DOM and the js code. Some people like one way of doing things some like another, so much of this just comes down to personal taste.

Cheers!

A few weeks ago I was going to implement something like this, but then I realized we are thinking of different goals. This plugin’s goal is caching jQuery objects to allow more manageability (instead of having to write a selector several times, just reference a key) and some faster responses (but all in all, speed was not the main goal). You would use it only for particular objects you know won’t be changing regularly and you’ll be referencing a lot.

On the other hand, what you want (I think) is a selector cache, and from my point of view that should be done at the selector’s engine level. Otherwise, it’d be useless for stuff like $(“.class_something”).children(“.selected”). Also having to manually refresh cached items doesn’t look too good (what will happen when you have 10+ cached items?).

I know Sizzle had a caching system but it’s been removed recently (explanation here: http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/bf2a17146c5c1ca5). However, I guess that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

Anyway, I would like to know your (and everybody’s) thoughts on this. I believe this plugin shouldn’t do much, or try to be too clever. I just wanted a way to avoid doing “var obj = $(…)” and I think the plugin the way it is right now does exactly that.

return jQueryCache;
}(jQuery);
}