[dojo-contributors] Re: Draft: Unified 2D graphics subsystem for Dojo
eugene at lazutkin.com
Mon Jun 5 21:34:18 EDT 2006
Tom Trenka wrote:
> 1st thing, foremost--instead of emulating existing APIs, perhaps we
> should try something a little different--maybe a more functional
> approach. For instance, we could have the Path functions return a
> reference to a path object, so that we could draw something in one fell
> swoop, like so:
> ...which looks more complex but is kind of in keeping with some of the
> coding style trends we've been using with Dojo (thinking about Deferred
> here, but other things as well).
No, it's perfect. All these methods "return void", so it is easy to
convert them to this style of use.
> Another overall comment I'd make is that we should probably try to use
> named argument objects more (similar to the way dojo.io.bind works),
> particularly when it comes to functions that require point coordinates.
> For instance:
> ...that kind of thing.
> Lastly, I'd advocate something like this for general audience usage, but
> I'd recommend against it (unless there were a really good reason to) for
> any widgets that Dojo releases itself that need to be high performance
> (and not functioning as an example). I'd think that the goal would be
> to bring vector drawing, in a Dojo style, to the general audience but we
> (being the Masters of the Universe(tm)) would take a tip from game
> development and go as raw as possible.
I understand your point. My only worry is the codebase will be bigger,
if we don't use the unifying base. But if we have performance problems,
or we need SVL/VML/Canvas-specific tricks, I would advocate the "raw"
approach too. Otherwise, I think we should use a foundation.
More information about the dojo-contributors