don't think that solves the problem.. if you don't have a variable reference
to it anymore, you need an array to find it again.
Pascal Bestebroer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software ontwikkelaar
Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
http://www.oibv.com
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Michael
> Pemberton
> Verzonden: woensdag 28 februari 2001 1:02
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Status of my work thread
>
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
