And I was expecting a function object rather than a function name:
this.init=init;
function init() {
//dostuff
}
Or, more commonly we'd probably see:
this.init = function () {
//dostuff
};
The property-based approach is nice because it doesn't reserve more function
names that a user might want to use himself, and it keeps the
constructurs/destructors visually distinct from operations.
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Keith Chapman
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:31 PM
> To: mashup-dev
> Subject: [mashup-dev] Service Lifecycle for Mashups
>
> Hi,
>
> I think its good to introduce some service life cycle stuff to our
> mashups. It makes our stuff more interesting. So basically it would
> calla special function at deployment time and another on undeployment.
>
> I propose introducing some annotations to take care of this.
> this.init="functionName"; -> To be called in deployment
> this.destroy="functionName"; -> To be called on undeployment
>
> Jonathan proposed destruct instead of destroy.
> What do u guys this how should we go about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Keith.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mashup-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mashup-dev
_______________________________________________
Mashup-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mashup-dev
