I hear you Angel, understood it's the jQuery widget convention you're following.  

For simple sites, this is fine, but if these controls are intended to be used in complex web apps with heavy clients, using jQuery widgets in their conventional form is not practical IMO.

We recently stopped using all IG controls except the grid because, among other reasons, we couldn't use them like normal javascript objects, which was causing a lot of confusion and slowing our development time to a crawl.

hi guys,

Our jQuery Widgets are based on jQuery UI, which uses those conventions for setting options. 

we can, of course, always implement a chained approach to setting options which follows the fluent pattern, if there is significant demand for it,  but this would deviate from jQuery UI - i am not saying it's a bad thing to do, on the contrary. 

Thanks

Angel

Hi, JoshNow,

Yes, this cause inefficiently works with intellisense and refactoring. The option() is object. When use option("autoComplete", true), this invoke setter method and change option. This is jQuery widget pattern.

If have others questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks for using our controls!

Stanimir

Thanks Stanimir, but you're still passing strings instead of just accessing methods and properties the way javascript intended.

You list this:

$("#combo").data("igCombo").option("autoComplete", true) ;  //smells, I have to look up the exact spelling and casing of options and methods to use them

Sparkli's syntax is much better :

$("#comboCurrency").igCombo().option().isEnable(false);  //works with intellisense & refactoring, hurray!