well.. I know it can work one way...
I'm just now testing my SuperClass, and putting existing
functionality from the DynAPI is not too hard....
The other way around would be worse though.. but it is
possible.
> Just throwing in two cents again...
>
> Rather than having the effort disintegrate into camps,
perhaps the object
> model folks could propose an object model that
encapsulates the current
> model? In this way, the object model folks could proceed
with creating a
> new object framework, and the "old model" people could
proceed with
> cross-platform/browser compatibilty fixes at the method
level. As the new
> object model came online, you wouldn't have to throw out
all the old code -
> or at least not as much.
>
> As an OO fan myself, Javascript's prototyping methods are
arcane to me. So
> my question is OO-advocates, is there a way to make a
generic "OO" wrapper
> for the existing prototype model? In other words,
encapsulate the existing
> model, then retool and optimize one object at a time to
take advantage of
> the new model while maintaining the functional code base
of the existing
> model. Can the process also work in reverse? Calls to
the prototyped
> instances would map back to the new objects? Am I in the
ozone here? (I
> may well be, as I admit Javascript is not my language of
choice.)
>
> My intention is not to start a flaming fest or have
everyone tell why what
> I'm asking can't be done. I'm only asking if it CAN be
done.
>
> My real intention is to see the effort move forward and
encourage this
> entourage of clearly gifted programmers to find a common
vision so that
> everyone's efforts can go into the same product and same
results.
>
> Hope these thoughts help.
>
> By the way, I'm not opposed to "real" object orientation
at all. I just
> want to be able to point my students to an API that
legitizes the concept of
> truly interactive HTML. I'm tired of students turning to
Flash to get
> things moving - dHTML is supposed to be able to do that,
and dynAPI seems
> the likeliest, best solution.
>
> Good luck in your debate. I am eager to see what
transpires. Long term the
> object model seems like a good idea - is their a
collective, collaborative
> best solution that will satisfy everyone in the near term?
>
> Dave Gerding
> Columbia College Chicago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Cameron Hart
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Counting so far
>
>
> this seems quite ridiculous, but for what it's worth add
me to the against.
> i'd rather see x-browser bugs fixed first.
>
> i really doubt that the current object model is what is
causing instability,
> if you can actually prove that perhaps i'll change sides.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Eytan
> > Heidingsfeld
> > Sent: 30 January 2001 16:13
> > To: Dynapi-Dev
> > Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Counting so far
> >
> >
> > For:
> > Me
> > Dann
> > Barre
> > Doug
> > Gortsilas
> > Against:
> > Pascal
> >
> > I can't decide what Jordi is. And if anyone wants to
move to the
> > against or
> > be added to any of the 2 let me know
> >
> > 8an
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
