He said it well: 'As it stands, all of the features are crammed into one class file, the FlashObject.js, making it very hard to add/remove functionality without fundamentally reprogramming the entire tool.'
IMHO, the code is very procedural, not object oriented. The cues for this are the endless conditional statements. A good, encapsulated architecture can greatly minimize these... Jim Kremens On 4/15/06, elibol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bryan if you thought that he could give you a valid answer to the questions > you're asking I don't think you would of asked them in the first place since > to think otherwise you would have come to a valid answer yourself. I think > you've taken someone elses opinion far too personally, otherwise I believe > your question would be generally presented rather than personally scolding > someone. > > I will assume that you really are just curious, and if this is the case, > then hearing the answer from me should make no difference. > > The Express Install feature for FlashObject originally had its own page with > comments, I would of liked to link you to that so you could see my own > reasoning for why it wasn't well implemented. > > To give you a basic outline of how I would of done things differently: > > The FlashObject class would just embed swf files. Any additional concerns > would be seperated from this class, where each class would interface to > operate with one another. Additional composite classes would serve to > package feature combinations to maintain an easy implementation by the user. > > As it stands, all of the features are crammed into one class file, the > FlashObject.js, making it very hard to add/remove functionality without > fundamentally reprogramming the entire tool. > > I hope this satisfies your curiosity, > > M. > > On 4/15/06, bryan.rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 14, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Jim Kremens wrote: > > > > > Did you ever look at the code? > > > > I have taken a look at the javascript and I find it pretty straight > > forward (though not commented)...what is that you don't like about > > it? Just curious. How would you write it differently? > > > > blue skies, > > bryan > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > http://www.figleaf.com > > http://training.figleaf.com > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > -- Jim Kremens _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
