Nah. If I were to use the original version, it's all wrapped up in a closure, so I can't access anything using an outside file.
On Jul 26, 1:44 pm, "David Marrs" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
