youch! it works but definitely not easy on the eyes! Chris
On Nov 9, 1:08 pm, Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, this is an issue. We thought about it awhile ago and decided an > include() API on the inside of the worker would be better. But we > haven't implemented it yet :(. > > Here's a blog entry I wrote that shows how to simulate it, which is > more involved than it at first seems: > > http://blog.youngpup.net/2007/09/simulating-include-in-workers.html > > - a > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Khookie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have js files that I would like to share across multiple worker > > files. I find it pretty useful myself to avoid code duplication while > > coding the workers. > > > For example, I've got a hack function at the moment called > > createWorkerFromUrls([url1, url2, url3]) where it gets each file via > > httprequest and waits on a timer until they're all fetched. Then > > they're joined together and passed to > > workerPool.createWorker(jsString); > > > Any possibility of a method like this down the track? > > > Chris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
