On 9/28/07, Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> What exactly is the "$super" argument and why does it always have the
> dollar sign in front of it?
It has the dollar sign in front because "super" is a reserved keyword in
JavaScript. "$super" was the next best thing.
Prototype looks whic
More support for the non-automatic constructor team, a lot of my
classes do not have constructors, they're abstract, this functionality
would fubar so much of my code.
On Sep 28, 11:24 am, "Nicolás Sanguinetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not gonna say to you that if you have something c
I have a question about the 1.6 inheritance model.
What exactly is the "$super" argument and why does it always have the
dollar sign in front of it?
Is the super a reference to the super class's prototype object or is
it an instance of the super?
Cheers,
Matt
On Sep 28, 11:24 am,
Sorry, you're right, I was just going down the path of teacher, guiding the
OP (who mentioned destructors first) towards a "Disposable" abstract class
to inherit from...
On 9/28/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/28/07, Ryan Gahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh yea...
On 9/28/07, Ryan Gahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh yea... it's definitely not a core thing as it depends on an app's
> object and domain model. This was kind of just an aside conversation that
> popped up I think :)
Well, it sounded like a core request at first.
Your "destructors" are ordin
Oh yea... it's definitely not a core thing as it depends on an app's object
and domain model. This was kind of just an aside conversation that popped up
I think :)
On 9/28/07, Nicolás Sanguinetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not gonna say to you that if you have something complex calling
>
I'm not gonna say to you that if you have something complex calling
"destructors" isn't correct. I'm just gonna argue against it being in
core, as IMHO it's something that not really many people need, and,
since you have to call it manually, the best you can do is defining a
naming convention, not
Alex, javascript has its own garbage collector, sure... but firstly, it's
not a consistent implementation across browsers. This is an ancient problem
as far as Ajax development goes. Secondly, the apps I develop (and more
people are starting to get into) are highly complex, long running single
page
On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, "Les Szklanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, the destructor needs to be called manually, but calling it
> eliminates possible memory leaks.
>
> See below a destructor for the marker (pin) object that you see on a
> map. This destructor also destroys the events object, wh
Yes, the destructor needs to be called manually, but calling it
eliminates possible memory leaks.
See below a destructor for the marker (pin) object that you see on a
map. This destructor also destroys the events object, which is a
property of marker.
/**
* APIMethod: destroy
* De
via the object model abstraction layer we have in our framework - so at that
level it's a manual call, but by using the framework it's managed and for
all intents and purposes automatic via a custom app garbage collector. Then
again, we have an XML layer to represent widgets as finite state machine
How would you implement a destroy or destructor function since
JavaScript doesn't support it? Do you manually call the method?
On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Les wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> Did you notice that each OpenLayers class has a destructor (destroy)
> and a property denoting the class name?
>
I use something similar in WebWidgetry's object model (dispose in my case
instead of destroy)... never saw OpenLayers.
On 9/24/07, Les <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ryan,
>
> Did you notice that each OpenLayers class has a destructor (destroy)
> and a property denoting the class name?
>
> I do
Ryan,
Did you notice that each OpenLayers class has a destructor (destroy)
and a property denoting the class name?
I don't see such a destructor in Prototype or Dojo, see below:
OpenLayers.Map = OpenLayers.Class({
initialize: function (div, options) {
},
destroy:function()
Les, everyone is correct in stating there are inherent problems (or issues
to be aware of) with multiple inheritance. However, it is certainly handy
when you really need it (and know what to be careful of). Again, feel free
to check out the inheritance model I use (
http://www.someelement.com/2007/
On 9/22/07, Les <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OpenLayers API 2.5 (a maping API in part based on Prototype)
> supports multiple inheritance, so why not Prototype?
Mislav said:
> Also, multiple inheritance isn't all that good. There is a reason Java and
> C++ successors like Objective-C and C#
The OpenLayers API 2.5 (a maping API in part based on Prototype)
supports multiple inheritance, so why not Prototype?
http://openlayers.org/download/
See the Class.js file in BaseTypes. I pasted a fragment from
Class.js:
/**
* Constructor: OpenLayers.Class
* Base class used to construct all
On Sep 22, 1:16 am, "Les Szklanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we support multiple mixins as
> in Dojo? How do I invoke constructors of these mixins?
There is no sense to invoke constructor of mixins (in Dojo is not
invoked too):
How to support mixins in Prototype? Goo question.
We can de
On 9/22/07, Les Szklanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, so there's a single supercalss. Do we support multiple mixins as
> in Dojo? How do I invoke constructors of these mixins?
Mixins shouldn't have constructors because they're, well, mixins. You have
to think outside the scope of Dojo her
Ok, so there's a single supercalss. Do we support multiple mixins as
in Dojo? How do I invoke constructors of these mixins?
http://dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-book-0-9/part-3-programmatic-dijit-and-dojo/object-orientation/mixins
Les
On 9/21/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/2
On 9/22/07, Les <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Mislav,
>
> The debate is not quite resolved for me. How do I use $super in case
> of multiple inheritance?
What made you believe we support multiple inheritance? This is a simple OO
model we're building here. We aren't making C++ in JavaScript, w
Mislav,
The debate is not quite resolved for me. How do I use $super in case
of multiple inheritance?
Let's say Cat inherits from Animal and Pet. How do I call Pet
constructor in Cat?
Les
On Sep 20, 11:39 am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Les Szklanny <[EMAIL PR
On 20/09/2007, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Les Szklanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But, shouldn't have to do this or use $super(name). The superclass
> constructor should be called automatically (as in Dojo for example).
>
> We have modeled OOP support in Proto
On 9/20/07, Les Szklanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> But, shouldn't have to do this or use $super(name). The superclass
> constructor should be called automatically (as in Dojo for example).
We have modeled OOP support in Prototype based on the most traditional
inheritance model. Most of th
The missing 'this' is just my typo :)
I see your point about being able to control if and how the superclass
constructor is called.
Interestingly, the Dojo team apparently believes that eliminating this
control reduces the size of boilerplate, see this:
http://dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-book-0-9/
Except i believe you really want call() here and not apply(), as you are not
giving the base constructor the instance reference being acted upon. If
"this" is used within the base class constructor, you'd run into problems.
In your case what you want is something like
Animal.prototype.initialize.ca
Actually, having the constructor called without your control could be
disastrous if the constructor of your base class doesn't accept the
same arguments as your derived class. Many languages use static
analysis to determine whether you've explicitly called your base
class' constructor, and
On Sep 20, 3:35 pm, "Les Szklanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh boy... what happened to the principle of least surprise? :)
People will be surprised by different things. I'd be surprised if it
were called by default (PHP doesn't do that...)- how would stopping it
work?
Greg
--~--~
Oh boy... what happened to the principle of least surprise? :)
I can invoke the superclass constructor by adding this line:
Animal.prototype.initialize.apply(arguments);
But, shouldn't have to do this or use $super(name). The superclass
constructor should be called automatically (as in Dojo for
You have to pass $super to the subclass' methods as its first argument
and then call it from there.
var Cat = Class.create(Animal, {
initialize: function($super, name) {
$super(name);
alert('Cat : initialize');
}
});
Best,
-Nicolas
On 9/20/07, Nicolás Sanguinetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
30 matches
Mail list logo
