Re[2]: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI.include() and Libraries

[Robert R. <rra...@ya...>]

The addLibrary is rarely used by the users. The only other place that
it would probaly ever be used is in widgets. Also, its not the size of
the string that matters. The only time the library array is used is
when you say dynapi.api.*. But if you left out the .js in the
addLibrary you would have to concatenate a .js on each string. This
isn't necessary.

The .js is not required in the include method, so I see no problem
here.  I'm not quite sure I see the need to add more to the methods
that will make include methods slower, just because you rarely even
use the addLibrary.  The addLibrary is mainly an internal method,
anyways.

-- 
// Robert Rainwater

On Thursday, November 02, 2000, 7:01:41 AM, Michael wrote:

> I've found that it is easier to read (and also looks more java-like) if
> your code pages don't need to have .js everywhere.

> Isn't it better to expect people to leave the .js off rather than treat
> it like and error and compensate for it?

> It also reduces the need to have it at the end of every library entry.
> As for speed, if it reduces the string sizes and treats the shorter
> annotation as the correct one, doesn't this make it faster.  It means
> that those of us who leave off the .js don't have to get the DynAPI to
> append the .js before it generates the <script> entry.  Again, the one
> line of code is faster than the two.
> --
> Michael Pemberton
> mp...@ph...
> ICQ: 12107010


> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev