Our main frame class is used as a common point for implementation of singleton functionality, e.g. managing context menus. Typically there are some members and a few functions for each case.
I don't want to define singletons classes for each block of functionality. One reason for that is that other frames may be defined so a true singleton would be no use. I wondered if using mixins would be a good idea. Basically I would strip out the functionality and members associated with something like server access and put it in a subsidiary mixin class. It would only be used in once place, in the frame, but would simplify the frame code immensely (already at 2500 lines). It would also mean that the definition of members including construction, destruction and function implementation could all be closely related rather than spread throughout the file. The only downside that I can see is the expectation for maintenance programmers that functions that are called on the frame from elsewhere are defined there. A little grepping will soon sort that out. Does this seem like a reasonable programming model for use of the mixins? Any gotchas or performance issues? Hugh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
