OK, I'll put together some code & try to turn it into a proposal in the next week or so. Thanks for the input to this.
Matthew Weier O'Phinney-3 wrote: > > -- lightflowmark <[email protected]> wrote > (on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 05:39 AM -0700): >> Is there a bonus to describing the deeper-nested objects as references >> rather >> than directly as in this example: >> http://www.nabble.com/file/p23196054/order_combined.json >> order_combined.json >> ? It seems to add obfuscation for deeply-nested arrays. > > Basically, it all comes down to what the dojo.data store and the model > consuming it on the client side understand. All my work with dijit.Tree > has used references, so that's what I know works. > >> Would code to convert my original $testArr to the format you outline, >> or the outline above, be a good solution for Zend_Dojo_Data? If so >> I'll try to put something together. > > I'd prefer the one from your link -- it's easier to accomplish, and > easier to read -- but, again, it depends on what dojo.data adapter and > tree model you're using on the client side. We could probably influence > which one becomes a de facto standard for use with ZF apps, though. :) > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFC%3A-Zend_Dojo_Data---associative-arrays-tp23175415p23214396.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
