On 11-10-28 09:28 AM, Aaron Bentley wrote: > On 11-10-27 07:55 PM, Ian Booth wrote: > >> My view is that I would rather adopt a consistent approach to >> these sorts of things, rather than using various design patterns to >> achieve the same end result. > > I guess I see it differently. To me, it's not about design patterns, > it's about whether to add an extra layer. I think it's not the same > result, because using YUI's oo means there's a whole bunch of extra > YUI code involved. > > I just didn't see a strong reason to have an extra layer, and I wanted > to get more experience with JavaScript's native oo. > > I'd agree that consistency can be a good reason, but AFAIK, both > styles of oo are used in Launchpad, so either would be inconsistent. > And I also think that any JavaScript programmer ought to be familiar > with JavaScript's native oo. They'll encounter it sooner or later, > perhaps even when debugging their own YUI-oo objects. >
I really liked Ian's summary of why we should standardize on YUI.Base, but I can understand your simplicity (get rid of extra layers) perspective. It's also true that both styles are currently in use in Launchpad, but I think we all agree that's a source of confusion. And unless I'm missing something, there is no way we could standardize on the JS-style without ditching YUI. We bought-in the YUI framework already, so we might as well drink the kool-aid. I guess what I'm trying to argue is that in a large system, consistency beats local simplicity. Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
