For me, the first approach suffices. regards,
Martin On 1/18/06, Andrew Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > I don't recall anymore what he said specifically - did > > he talk about namespacing? do you do that? > > I was unable to find anything specific to comment on. > Most of Martin Cooper's comments in his posts were > about the technology being too immature and that he > felt (after looking at the codebase) that is was the > old way of doing things. But nothing specific about > why he felt that way. But I'm confident that he'll > respond shortly with specific concerns that we can > discuss. > > Namespacing is an interesting issue as related to > JavaScript programming. There's no inherent namespace > support in the language so there's generally two > approaches people take: 1) class name prefixes; and > 2) nested objects to mimic packages. > > The Zimbra code (as well as Yahoo and Google, from > what I've seen) uses the first approach. You could > argue that it's less "clean" than the other approach > but it's certainly more efficient because you don't > have to perform all those dereferences to get to the > object you're interested in. For example: AjxDateUtil > vs. com.zimbra.util.DateUtil. > > I personally don't have a huge preference for one > over the other but when you have more and more client > side code, every little bit of performance helps. > > -- > Andy Clark * Zimbra * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
