Futurescale, Inc. PureMVC Home

The PureMVC Framework Code at the Speed of Thought


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2017, 12:34:41 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please DM @puremvc on Twitter to gain forum access. Spambots are why we can't have nice things.
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Port Demos on: February 19, 2012, 08:04:50 PM
Hey there- just to clarify- not one execution of the code- pretty sure it's broken somewhere stupid- didn't get so far to test the tests! Def not finished. Just skeleton code, but regardless of StateMachine, if you're ok with me taking a look at Employee Admin, I'd love to take a stab at it of you're ok with that? Cheers for the GitHub link btw - let me know Smiley
2  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: A simple Native JS app skeleton? on: February 11, 2012, 06:03:24 AM
Hi Chris- we're working on a number of ports at the moment, which may help there. I like the idea of a 'default' project though, something to aid a quick jump in... is that more in keeping with what you're thinking?
3  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Javascript port? on: February 02, 2012, 04:12:14 PM
Guys, if that isn't irony, I don't know what is- posted that not realising Cliff had posted! Ai ai ai! Smiley
4  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Javascript port? on: February 02, 2012, 03:58:49 PM
Hi Frederic,

you're obviously very passionate about this, and there is an obvious lack of communication happening.

Quote
we can't e-mail the whole PureMVC community every time we want to talk about a project

That is precisely what I am trying to avoid by asking you to coordinate with me offline, not in the sense that you have to report to me, but in the sense that you are an active contributor to the project as am I, and at the very least we should be on the same page, and if not, take the time. I appreciate you are making plans, but if you make them in isolation, or simply assert them, surely you can understand that there are going to be crossed wires. Neither I, nor you, nor any other contributor, can put their interests on hold simply because another contributor has asserted that they are doing a certain thing. The spirit of open source software is combining effort to solve a particular problem for mutual benefit, and I'm sure you feel the same.

I have a lot of respect for any programmer taking the initiative, and especially you considering your contributions. I can genuinely understand your frustration, but please don't be skeptical. All I am asking, from a pragmatic perspective, is that we, and not just you and I, but any contributor, feel free to undertake anything they want to do, but just check in to make sure there is no redundant effort going on in terms of assembling a quality stack, and I say this against the bigger picture of open source software development, not just PureMvc.

Just to be clear, just because I completed the port (as in, I had a few hours spare the other evening and wanted to see how puremvc.define feels when used to implement a utility, but have yet to devise any comprehensive tests due to time constraints), doesn't mean I have an entitlement to 'own' the port space. None of us do! These are derivative works- the original authors deserve the kudos. Porting them is simply a pragmatic step, nothing else, at least as far as I see it. Thats my outlook, c'est fin. I hope you take the best from it, rather than the worst, and that we all can work together to get this stack right, to help us help ourselves get to the real fun stuff, which is using it to make killer apps.

Best

Dave

5  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Javascript port? on: February 02, 2012, 02:28:13 PM
Em, you do know I ported two days ago, right? How about we work together? This isn't a one man show! Entirely up to you - what would really help out would be the devisement of some unit tests if your interested? But I will ask you once more to direct project planning related questions away from the forum of you don't mind? I would really appreciate keeping the topics focused on helping end users and discussing use cases and their resolution. Thanks a million.
6  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Javascript port? on: February 02, 2012, 02:10:24 PM
Hey Frederic, let's coordinate offline. The forums shouldn't be used for project planning if you're ok with that? Ping you tomorrow, thanks.

7  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Native Javascript port? on: February 02, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Hey guys, apologies for my absence of late, I'll be more involved day to day moving forward. Just a quick note in relation to type checking with typeof and Object.prototype.toString.

Object.prototype.toString called on an instance of any Native class will return the name of that class in the form [object ClassName] where ClassName can be an instance of any Native JavaScript class (String, Boolean, Number, Function, Array, Object, Date, RegExp, Error(s)). In all other cases, it will return [object Object] (except for the case of host object in MSIE, which return [object]). One useful benefit is that while instanceof will fail for native instances referenced from another global scope (such as an iFrames global scope), calling the native Object.prototype.toString method on an instance of a Native object from another scope is consistent across all browsers.

All that said, generally, its preferable (and fully supported by all JavaScript interpreters) to use the 'function' === typeof object idiom that Frederic suggested, unless of course, like Ext's authors, you want to support the edge case of using a Function instance that was created in another global context. I'm not sure here is the right place to discuss the fine detail of JavaScript, but its naturally going to crop up... I'm wondering if we compile and point to a list of articles that we can defer these kind of questions to.

Any suggestions as to where we could house that or what we should link to? I just want to keep some kind of separation of concerns between JavaScript in the large and how to use PureMvc- maybe a dedicated thread focused on a few pertinent JavaScript gotchas that people may encounter when using the library?

Anyhow, here's an article comparing Object.prototype.toString to typeof : http://perfectionkills.com/instanceof-considered-harmful-or-how-to-write-a-robust-isarray/

8  PureMVC Manifold / Multicore Version / Re: Registering and retrieving a proxy on: January 22, 2012, 10:51:43 AM
Hi Mike,

this is pretty straightforward- I think you may have just overlooked calling the Proxy super constructor properly. Rather than
Code:
function StoryProxy(name, component) {
    console.log('new StoryProxy: '+name);
    Proxy.call(name);
}
try
Code:
function StoryProxy(name, component) {
    console.log('new StoryProxy: '+name);
    // invoke Proxy using the StoryProxy instance as the execution scope
    Proxy.call(this, name);
}
Its easy to overlook, but when invoking super constructors with call or apply, just remember to pass in an instance of the subclass the first argument. Note that you can use apply to invoke a super constructor without having to define specific arguments.
Code:
function StoryProxy ()
{
    Proxy.apply(this, arguments);
}

Hope this works for you.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply
Pages: [1]