what happened to using unique keys (see threads) for identifiying the layers?
is this ever gonna be implemented?
Pascal Bestebroer wrote:
> totally agree on everything.... except (sorry man, I tried, honest)
>
> - DynLayer.references.. I think it would be better to make that
> DynAPI.references, the DynLayer should be a "stand alone" object (ask Eytan
> :) So keeping a reference in the DynLayer "constructor" just doesn't
> sound/look logical. The DynAPI should be seen as the root object of a
> DynAPI-OM (object model), keeping track of unassigned layers.
>
> Pascal Bestebroer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Jordi - IlMaestro
> > - Ministral
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 27 februari 2001 12:06
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] Status of my work thread
> >
> >
> > I will send several hours on the API now.
> > I'm starting this thread to keep people informed on what I'm doing so
> > you can stop me if I'm missing anything or I'm breaking some code.
> >
> > Here's what I've done so far.
> >
> > - Added the is.mac, is.win32 and is.other boolean values. I've kept the
> > is.platform property for backwards compatibility
> > - Replaced is.platform checks. Now we use the above booleans
> > - Created a DynLayer.references array where I store all layers.
> > Dynlayer.toString() now uses this array. I did this because we did not
> > have a unique identifier for each DynLayer now. When the DynLAyer was
> > created we had to look for it in the unassigned array, and after
> > creation we used the getDocument().getLeyr...., the this.toString()
> > method mught fail if it was used to write, for example, a link to a
> > layer before it had been created, becausethe body of the link:
> > "DynAPi.unassigned['layer23'].do()" failed to work as after creation
> > DynAPI.unassigned.. no longer existed. I could have had the layers not
> > to be removed from the unassigned array, but I found that to be dirty.
> > Sure we're adding yet another array ( memory leaks!!!!! ) but we're
> > going to solve the memory deletion issues soon, aren't we :)
> >
> > I'm not submitting these changes now. I'd like to test before. Just
> > keeping people informed. If you feel I'm screwing it, please tell me
> > while the wounds are not mortal.
> >
> > Cya
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
--
Michael Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 12107010
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
