Subj : Re: Creating classes/namespaces on the fly from existing functions?
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : Shanti Rao
Date : Tue Jan 11 2005 02:46 pm


>> f = getLibrary("foo.js")
>> includeLibrary("bar.js")
>>
>> With the former, there are a few minor glitches. Consider
>>
>> js>f = {Foo: function() {this.message = 'Foo'}};
> 
> 
> But why must getLibrary be implemented so as to use anonymous functions 
> if "foo.js" contains named function declarations?
> 
> /be
> 

That is exactly the problem with using an object when you really wanted a 
namespace.

For the sake of argument, assume that "foo.js" contains a named function 
Foo(), and getLibrary() makes Foo() (formerly a global object in foo.js) into 
a property of an object when included in another script.

Now that I think about it some more, it's sufficiently confusing to promote 
the minor glitch into a major irritation. It makes it very difficult to 
convert a stand-along script into a library. This conception of a getLibrary() 
function will probably be a failure.

An include() function still works, so long as you don't unintentionally use 
the same global variable name in two different source files. This highlights 
the fact that creating a class is very different from creating a namespace.

Shanti

PS. Straw man: what about a 'library' as a separate thread with a COM-like 
messaging interface? A synchronous function call would send a message and wait 
for a reply. Or not wait. It invokes buzzwords like grid computing and 
transaction processing.

.