On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 14:19, Fritz Zaucker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010, Derrell Lipman wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 14:00, Fritz Zaucker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> P.S.: I don't understand mixin's well enough, so this might be a silly > >> question: if I use it in my application, then the method is added > to > >> every object in my application? Or could a mixin just have a > "local" > >> effect on the objects of a specific class (e.g., only in those > >> classes, where I have a need for bind())? > >> > > > > A mixin has an effect on every object of the class to which it is "mixed > > in", including every object which descends from that class. Since nearly > > every class in qooxdoo descends from qx.core.Object, any methods mixed in > to > > qx.core.Object are included in nearly every qooxdoo object. That's why > > Fabian's point has merit. > > That I understand. What I am wondering is, if I could in own of my own > class > files (e.g. extending qx.ui.toolbar.Toolbar) instead of > > qx.Class.include(qx.core.Object, custom.MObject); > > use > > qx.Class.include(qx.ui.toolbar.Toolbar, custom.MObject); > > and thus only add the bindto() method to objects descending of Toolbar. If > this could be done with the same (or somehow generic) mixin, it would give > me all control about where to use this convenience method (without > explicitely defining it myself in each class I want to use it in, which I > could, I guess?). > Absolutely. If you only need it with a small number of classes, that's a good way to go. Derrell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
