You should have had access to the APP methods in the unmodified example. You couldn't just call APP.stuff.doStuff() in your code? Or am I missing something here?
On 26 Jul 2011 18:30, Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: The project I'm working on has an enormous JS file that I didn't want to add to. I wanted to access some of the methods defined, so I created an adapter file that would load "after" (minfied + combined) the main file. Here is how the original would look: var APP = APP || {}; APP = { stuff : { doStuff : function(){}, doStuffAgain : function(){} }, moreStuff : { doMoreStuff : function(){} } }; In order to access it's methods, I returned it as an object like this: var APP = APP || {}; APP = (function() { return { stuff : { doStuff : function() { }, doStuffAgain : function() { } }, moreStuff : { doMoreStuff : function() { } } // etc }; })(); It seems to work fine. I have access to everything I need in my adapter. However, there were never any tests written, so I'm not 100% sure EVERYTHING will work. Are there any obvious downsides in doing something like this? -- 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]
