@Augusto Moura, I like the approach using `hasInstance`.
It may be just me, but having your software architecture hardcoded to your filesystem (even with logical roots) feels shaky. (and so 1970’s 😊). Namespaces serve the purpose you stated at compile/runtime, but also serve as a form of human readable GUID for classes at design time, and allow creating a logical hierarchy independent of storage. This could be helpful for things like “object servers”/DI approaches. If I expose a service to deliver ES Classes, I don’t want users to know or depend on how I store them. ES is awesomely dynamic in every way except the hardcoded paths. Really, underlying the proposal is wanting to uniquely identify my classes with a token. As much for design-time as run-time. Currently, I expose a static GUID in all of my classes.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
