[Laszlo-dev] Do we really need top-level name => id idiom?

[André Bargull]

`lzAddLocalData` is _not_ used for local datasets, it is used for 
top-level datasets, see "DataCompiler.java". So that's a compile time 
issue, which shouldn't be a problem even in swf9.

These two constructs no longer work to create a global object:
new <lznode subclass>(canvas, {name: 'foo'});
new <lznode subclass>(canvas, {id: 'foo'});

Hm, would it make sense to integrate "as3 global-support" like this 
"http://www.uza.lt/codex/as3-global-object/"? That way you can create 
code which works in all runtimes,
provided that everyone uses "global.foo" to access a global object.

On 4/10/2008 2:11 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> Because I can't see how to implement that at runtime in swf9.
>
> Currently, if I say:
>
>   new <lznode subclass>(canvas, {name: foo});
>
> the global `foo` will be bound to my instance.  In particular, this 
> idiom is currently used by `lzAddLocalData` and `lzpreloader`.  Do 
> local datasets really need to be stored as globals?  This seems like 
> namespace pollution to me.  We can't do this in swf9 because swf9 does 
> not let you dynamically add global names.
>
> I would like to remove support for a top-level name acting as an id.  
> In fact, our documentation says that both `name` and `id` are final, 
> which would indicate to me that you should not be able to supply them 
> at run time at all. IWBRN to remove this wart.
>