Addition of a global namespace function?
rfobic at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 09:52:34 PST 2009
@Mark there are a lot of different implementations for usage in browser and
all of them have + and - .
Let me disagree with the fact that mozilla itself is using your proposed
solutions, cause even though I'm not hired by mozilla I'm one part of the
contributors community and quite updated with everything happening in there,
besides mozilla has much better solution for solving the problem you're
trying to solve and it has been there since 3.0 AFAR.
It's called modules.
BTW as you are interested in Mozilla you might be interested in the fact
that they are considering to implement some of the specs from commonjs for
the jetpacks. Besides mozilla bespin's plugin infrastructure is also going
to be fully based on commonjs packages and the work already in progress.
Back to the browser implementations here is:
one from me which is really simple and doesn't claims to be something
special, it serves well my needs so far:
And here is the more complicated one by sproutcore:
There is aslo some implementations for xulrunner:
one from me and another from Atul Varma (Mozillian)
BTW you might be interested to find out that bunch of mozillians
are hanging out on commonjs mailing list. In case you want to
discuss specs or implementations of commonjs I'de recommned to do it in
commonjs mailing list.
P.S.: I do think you are getting it to personal and it really doesn't
Address: Taksteeg 3 - 4, 1012PB Amsterdam, Netherlands
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 17:58, Mark A. Ziesemer <online at mark.ziesemer.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Alex Russell <alex at dojotoolkit.org>
> > CommonJS modules don't solve the global pollution problem, because they
> can't. We're gonna keep blowing off limbs until we acknowledge that there's
> a design flaw in the language and take some positive action at a semantic
> level to correct it.
> Is there any possibility that some solution at the semantic level
> could be back-ported to previous versions of the language, such as
> discussion is just needed by others to finalize a solution, I'm sure
> that I and others are willing to wait. If not, I think that something
> - such as the namespace function I proposed - should continue to be
> considered as an "immediate" solution.
> Mark A. Ziesemer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss