I appreciate your answers, but to get a flexible framework there must be a
flexible way of handling this.
1. I could not find this documented (which means I didn't find it and that
means it was not clear enough or whatever!):
a. that it is not possible to add new classes in existing namespaces, also qx
namespace, without new Manifest.json files (which I have shown it is the only
case it works).
when you do NOT want to extend classes f.i. adding a missing widget in
the namespace and you don't think that grouping should be other place
b. that overriding is not possible
could be useful, but not really what I wanted cause it might disrupt the
library
2. I would do 1a in Java too!!!!
1b is also an option for people who think parts of the framework is not good
enough or they want to change functionality but keep the other structure due to
compatibility from version to version. Look at the recent thread about
performance decrease from one version to another.....!!!!! In that case he has
developed new so called light-weight widgets, but for compatibility he might
want to use the same namespace = no changing, and then hook in the new ones
instead of the old ones!!!!
Do you understand me now? This would increase the flexibility and (RE)USABILITY
of the framework.
Stefan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
