I am taking a look at shadowbox 2.0 and I noticed the basic adapter.
I am currently using mootools and I wanted to know if there is any advantage of using the mootools adapter as oposed to the basic adapter.
I think decoupling shadowbox from any framework is an architectural advantage and judging from the minified size, all adapters have a smal lenough size.
Is there another advantage for using a framework specific adapter?
Re: differences between basic and framework adapter
I've tried both prototype and the included adapter and have noticed no perceivable difference in performance. I think it's just an extension of the idea of the adapters. If you're already using a particular framework, you can squeeze a few kb by using the appropriate adapter. If you aren't, however, you can use the basic one and forego the overhead of having to use a particular framework.