Thanks for the response. On Jun 21, 10:41 am, "David Marrs" <[email protected]> wrote: > You're not overwriting the namespace, but extending it, so you wouldn't want > to fail if an object is already there. It just means that you can separate > your code out into separate files in a reliable way. > > You can also load those modules asyncronously if you wish. > > On 21 Jun 2011 13:46, Philip Schweiger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, that makes a bit more sense. I can see that working when you have > > complex code with different dependencies loading at different times. I > > think it makes a bit less sense when dealing with smaller, self- > > contained modules as opposed to namespaces, though - in that case, I > > still think it would make more sense to throw an error. So I suppose > > it comes down to the use case - are you working with objects as a > > large namespace, or objects as a self-contained module. > > Thanks. > > On Jun 20, 10:25 am, Nick Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Let's say you have YAHOO.util.search and YAHOO.util.dom (making these > > > up). Both rely on a YAHOO.util namespace, but you can't assume that > > > that namespace has already been created. So you check to see if > > > YAHOO.util exists, and if not, make it. Otherwise you use the > > > pre-existing namespace. > > > > > > On 20 June 2011 15:11, Philip Schweiger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In reading about the JavaScript namespacing or module patterns, I > > > > often see a step taken to avoid overwriting an existing object. For > > > > instance, at Eric Miragla's description of the module pattern > (http:// > > > >www.yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/), he mentions that > the > > > > YAHOO.namespace() method "assigns an empty object myProject as a > > > > member of YAHOO (but doesn’t overwrite myProject if it already > > > > exists)." > > > > > > > I don't understand the utility of this - wouldn't it be better to > > > > throw an error instead? Presumably, if you are trying to assign a > > > > namespace that already exists, you were not aware of the prior > > > > existence of that namespace, so that is a coding error that you > should > > > > be made aware of, and a signal to the script to stop further > > > > execution. If you DID already know of the existence of this > namespace, > > > > I'd think you'd want a sort of "extend" method, NOT an assignment > > > > method. In neither case does it make sense that the script should > just > > > > assume you knew what you were doing here and continue on. Am I > missing > > > > something? > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > -- > > > > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman > list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit > here:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > -- > > > Nick Morganhttp://skilldrick.co.uk > > > @skilldrick > > -- > > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit > here:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]
-- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
