Demo browser VS invisble demo-specific classes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Demo browser VS invisble demo-specific classes

Gaetan de Menten
Hello to the qooxdoo team,

There is an issue I've been annoyed with for a while: some demos use
"inaccessible" classes. That is classes which are specific to the
demos but whose code is not accessible through it. Even if it is good
practice to factorize code in normal code, I don't think it's a good
idea to do it within demos, as it defeats the purpose of the demos:
"how do I do xxx?" If some code is not as easily accessible, it makes
that particular demo much less interesting. One of these examples is
the new messenger demo:

var MessengerLayer = new demobrowser.demo.virtual.MessengerLayer();

I had to checkout the source to see what it is exactly...

You could implement a way to view each included file, but that would
be quite a lot of trouble compared to simply "unfactorize" those
classes into the demo code itself.
--
Gaëtan de Menten
http://openhex.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Demo browser VS invisble demo-specific classes

Fabian Jakobs
Administrator
Hi Gaetan,

> Hello to the qooxdoo team,
>
> There is an issue I've been annoyed with for a while: some demos use
> "inaccessible" classes. That is classes which are specific to the
> demos but whose code is not accessible through it. Even if it is good
> practice to factorize code in normal code, I don't think it's a good
> idea to do it within demos, as it defeats the purpose of the demos:
> "how do I do xxx?" If some code is not as easily accessible, it makes
> that particular demo much less interesting. One of these examples is
> the new messenger demo:
>
> var MessengerLayer = new demobrowser.demo.virtual.MessengerLayer();
>
> I had to checkout the source to see what it is exactly...
>
> You could implement a way to view each included file, but that would
> be quite a lot of trouble compared to simply "unfactorize" those
> classes into the demo code itself.
>  
you are right there are some demos, which use those invisible classes. I
think some may be easy to unfactorize and I think it is a good idea to
do so. Examples which come to my mind are:

 - Layout Demos - we use a special Application base class to provide the
property editors. I think in this case this is OK because the important
code is vissible.
 - Table Demos - here again we use a special base class, which provides
some infrastructure. In this case it may be better to unfactorize
 - Virtual Demos - this is right now pretty much an open playground for
us to experiment with the new features. I don't want to restrict us in
this place right now but once it is finished we'll put refactored demos
there

Do you have any other demos at hand, which use internal classes?


Best Fabian





--
Fabian Jakobs
JavaScript Framework Developer

1&1 Internet AG
Brauerstraße 48
76135 Karlsruhe

Amtsgericht Montabaur HRB 6484

Vorstand: Henning Ahlert, Ralph Dommermuth, Matthias Ehrlich, Thomas Gottschlich, Matthias Greve, Robert Hoffmann, Markus Huhn, Oliver Mauss, Achim Weiss
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Michael Scheeren


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Demo browser VS invisble demo-specific classes

Gaetan de Menten
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 19:42, Fabian Jakobs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  - Layout Demos - we use a special Application base class to provide the
> property editors. I think in this case this is OK because the important
> code is visible.

Well, I remember that I wanted to know how you had implemented those
very property editors. But well... that might be just me...

>  - Table Demos [...]
>  - Virtual Demos [...]

> Do you have any other demos at hand, which use internal classes?

Not that I know of. You've pretty much summed those I remember
stumbling upon. I haven't looked at them all though.

--
Gaëtan de Menten
http://openhex.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel