But won't you start to have conflicts if you wanted other libraries that used mixins?
Mike On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 6/20/15, 8:38 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >What happens if you try to compile an external that does this that is not > >part of the JS.swc build? Well for one, it won't be added because the > >Window class is already compiled into the JS.swc. > > > >So for now, it's important that we add all externs to JS.swc that mixin to > >the HTML DOM classes. > > > >Good frameworks I would think don't do this? It's just their API and that > >is all. > > > > Hmm, I’ll get a lot of frameworks hack the built-in prototypes. We’re > doing that in the UI frameworks for FlexJS. First of all, it is possible, > second, there are only so many ways to associate the actual HTML elements > with the actual classes you want to present. > > So maybe, instead of having a stack of SWCs where Jquery.swc depend on > js.swc, the Jquery.swc will be all-inclusive and not depend on js.swc > because it will have its own copies of the classes that are in js.swc in > it with the modifications that JQuery applies. > > -Alex > >
