Re: [Dynapi-Dev] (no subject)

[Scott A. L. <sc...@sc...>]

I like that idea, and it seems to work.  I would propose some standard
syntax:

function Widget() {
  this.superClass = DynLayer
  this.superClass()
  ...
}

I think that's easier to understand than "this.DynLayer=DynLayer"...what
DynLayer? :-)












-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Bestebroer <pa...@dy...>
To: dyn...@li... <dyn...@li...>
Date: Sunday, October 29, 2000 4:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] (no subject)


>I think there's another way of solving this..  By slightly changing the
>way widgets are created (still using the same inheriting methods)
>
>here's an example:
>
>
>function CoreButton(x,y,w,h,caption,flat) {
> this.DynLayer = DynLayer
> this.DynLayer()
>
> this.id = "CoreButton"+(CoreButton.Count++)
>
> this.moveTo(x||0,y||0)
> this.setSize(w||128,h||36)
>
> this.caption=caption||''
>
> this.lcaption=new DynLayer(null,2,2)
> this.levents=new DynLayer(null,0,0)
>
> this.lcaption.setVisible(true)
> this.levents.setVisible(true)
>
> this.setFlat(flat||false)
> this.setVisible(true)
>
> this.style=new CoreStyle()
>
> this.children=[]
>
> return this
>}
>CoreButton.Count=0
>CoreButton.prototype = new DynLayer()
>
>The first lines in the constructor show the main change, I actually think
>somebody
>else had already mentioned this a while back but I didn't look at it then
:(
>
>This is actually the way Netscape is talking about creating objects on the
>tutorial sites.
>
>I think this solves the problem with the children array, so that no changes
>are needed to
>the dynlayer constructor. The widget will still be an "enhancded" dynlayer.
>
>I've also been working on benchmark / test code and I'll try to post it so
>that people
>can look at it and run some tests in other browsers.
>
>Pascal Bestebroer
>pa...@dy...
>http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dynapi-Dev mailing list
>Dyn...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>