On 01.05.2006 18:36, Christopher Nelson wrote:
> ---
> // Setup some helpers for the particleFountain object.
> particleFountain.Stop = function()
> {
> var stopCmd = 0;
> particleFountain.onEvent(stopCmd);
> }
>
> particleFountain.Start = function()
> {
> var startCmd = 1;
> particleFountain.onEvent(startCmd);
> }
> ---What if I want, say, two particle fountains, with identical methods etc. but affecting e.g. two different fountains visible on screen? > Being able to accept and post more sophisticated objects would require > your app to be more tightly bound to the JS api. In that case, you will > not be using AWS2's simple interface. Or you could make AWS2's interface powerful enough to allow more sophisticated objects, AWS2 would provide the necessary glue then. > If you still feel that your idea has merit and that I am perhaps missing > the point, please provide me with a practical use case that demonstrates > your preferences. Any case where you want to have two distinct objects of the same "type"? Also, using static functions as callbacks encourages bad coding style. Example: Your very own code where you need to access the "application" object by using a global static variable. This is just plain bad style. Using real C++ methods avoid that; plus, you have the option of making your "script object" support less limited in the future (say if you get the idea that providing a away to return new objects to JS via function results would be nice). -f.r.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
