Sounds wonderful, why don't you take it a step beyond words and show us js
dummies how that would be done? We'd all worship at your shrine.
jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kremens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Q: Flash Object vs UFO for flash detection and
aseolas workaround
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
_______________________________________________
[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
