OK, I understand it now. Thank you Jakob and everyone else. My opinion is
that it's too messy to work it that way, and really kind of "flies in the
face" of how a DOM binding/implementation is really supposed to work. The
system I have in place (with the linked external cast) seems to be the very
best solution. I think I'll stick with it.
Thanks!
-Christopher
-----Original Message-----
From: Jakob Hede Madsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: <lingo-l> The Merits (or Not) of Protection
Just like to add, that an important part of my idea is to extract the
"scripts" from the LDM into the instantiated object, so to
facilitating further instantiation of new objects.
Of course, you can always instantiate a new object, from an existing
one, by accessing its "script" property, but it seems more to point,
to explicitly store the script-references.
Actually, this "container object" could just be instantiated by the
LDM itself, and placed in the stage-scope in a convenient location,
such as a global, or in a property of the behavior placed on the LDM
sprite.
Doesn't really matter, just a matter of convenience for the Author.
When you have the "container object", you simply request "classes"
from there, instead of asking for them in a castLib. So instead of
writing:
xmlObject = script("xmlScript").new()
You would go:
xmlObject = gXmlScriptContainer.mGetScript("xmlScript").new()
In its simplest form.
And the gXmlScriptContainer would simply look up the scriptReference
from a propertyList.
Jakob
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
