As mentioned by Paul before you can define:
function(){
FooClass.prototype.method = function() { }
FooClass.prototype.method2 = function() { }
}();
to get a local scope.
I think this makes it easier to audit what must be included in an export.
And when you come up for air soon, maybe we can talk about AMD format and
what that brings to the table. :)
From: John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com>
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Date: 07/26/2011 04:43 PM
Subject: Re: javascript readability..
I still prefer status quo, as it reads more like a proper class to me,
while
being less verbose and centralizing the exported method definitions in a
single place.
As well, this question's corollary is whether to convert all instantiable
objects to the form:
FooClass.prototype.method = function() { }
FooClass.prototype.method2 = function() { }
...from:
FooClass = function() {
// private state
function method() { }
function method2() { }
return {
method: method,
method2: method2
};
};
On this note, I'm conflicted. I like having actual private state, but
prototype-style is more efficient.
Enough people have complained over time about each of the existing idioms
though that I suppose I could go the other direction, if it's causing
development trouble.
--j
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Ryan J Baxter <rjbax...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> +1 As well, I think its easier to read.
>
> -Ryan
>
> Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com
> Phone: 978-899-3041
> developerWorks Profile
>
>
>
> From: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
> Date: 07/26/2011 09:00 AM
> Subject: Re: javascript readability..
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> From: Paul Lindner <lind...@inuus.com>
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
> Date: 07/26/2011 02:51 AM
> Subject: javascript readability..
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious to know what people think about some of the idioms in the JS
> code you find in shindig. There's an awful lot of stuff like this:
>
> shindig.foo = function(){
> //...
> var myFunction = function() {
> }
>
> return {'foo': myFunction,
> 'bar': function() {
> return 'bar';
> }};
> }();
>
>
> Just search for @member to see the various places.
>
> What would people think if we moved to fully defined names for
> function/method definitions instead?
>
> You could still wrap this inside a closure if you wanted local scope:
>
> function() {
> shindig.foo.foo = function() {
> ...
> }
> shindig.foo.bar = function() {
> ...
> }
> }();
>
> --
> Paul Lindner -- lind...@inuus.com -- linkedin.com/in/plindner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
