flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Beads and DRY (was Re: [FlexJS] Removing PasswordInputBead has no effect)
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2017 01:08:37 GMT
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In FlexJS we have a preference towards utility classes.
>
> So say we have existing bead A and we want to add some functionality to
> to. In order to use utility classes we would need to modify bead A and pull
> out some of the code into a utility class so bead B can use it.
>
> This will increase the size/runtime cost to existing people using bead A.
> Is this accectable?
>

Yes, there will be a size cost, which is why the inheritance approach is
better than Utils approach for Beads.

*Utils approach:*

Bead A supports feature X
Bead B needs to support feature X and Y

Create a Util class called FeatureXAndY

Bead A calls util:FeatureXAndY (Now Bead A loads code for unnecessary
feature Y)
Bead B calls util:FeatureXAndY

*Inheritance approach:*

Bead A supports feature X
Bead B needs to support feature X and Y

Bead A has code for feature X alone (no extra code)
Bead B extends Bead A and adds code for feature Y (no extra code)
Moreover, no extra util class to maintain.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message