Since nobody complained, I'll take that for a yes :) Will update http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HJavaScriptBestPractices and fix code accordingly.
Jerome. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Thanks, > Marius > > On 10/20/2010 06:38 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> I'd like to propose we adopt the module pattern for our XWiki's >> javascript modules. >> >> The pattern and its variations is well described here : >> http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/3/JavaScript-Module-Pattern-In-Depth >> >> I would follow the author advice and go for loose augmentation and >> sub-modules. I don't think we need private states. >> >> Main avantages I see over what we currently are doing are : >> * It enforces namespacing and the use of a private scope versus manual >> namespacing in the global window scope >> * It easily supports global imports (can be useful for example when >> using jQuery in addition to prototype) >> * It's more elegant and easier to read. For example : >> >> var XWiki = (function(XWiki, $j){ >> >> var mySubModule = XWiki.mySubModule = XWiki.mySubModule || {}; >> >> // my sub module code here >> >> return XWiki; >> >> })(XWiki, jQuery) >> >> instead of the tedious : >> >> if (typeof XWiki == "undefined") { >> XWiki = new Object(); >> } >> if (typeof XWiki.mySubModule == "undefined") { >> XWiki.mySubModule = new Object(); >> } >> >> // my sub module code here >> >> I'm +1 to adopt it. >> >> WDYT ? >> >> Jerome >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
