I only read this article quickly. I’m not sure what you mean by “proxies
to XML.xmlObj”.
My takeaway from the article is that the XML class you are writing will
need to handle
new XML(someString)
by implementing one of the conversions. I didn’t know about JXON until
you posted the link just now, but I was thinking along the same lines.
The attributes and children would be properties on the XML instance. Then
the delete operator would automatically do the right thing.
I don’t think the article covered two of the issues you raised:
1) a child tag <name /> conflicting with the name() function and other
collisions like that.
2) how to track mutation of an XMLList back to the XML.
I don’t think e4x-like query results was in the scope of the article.
I was just looking at how the delete operator gets parsed. I think it
will be possible, if we know the object is XMLList, to call a
removeChild() function.
The answer for #1 might be similar. We might try to detect function calls
on objects of type XML and XMLList and call the functions with a decorated
name. I should add that doing so wouldn’t help folks who are trying to
use your XML classes from native JS. This approach requires the class
substitutions that FalconJX executes when the SWF version (which uses the
XML and XMLList definitions in playerglobal/airglobal) gets cross-compiled.
For #2, how bad would it be if the compiler output an error or warning if
folks write to an XMLList. Isn’t there always a way to do the same thing
by direct manipulation of the XML? Otherwise, you might have to resort to
using Object.defineProperties and maybe define one extra index that, when
written to, ands a new extra index.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 11/12/15, 12:10 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, there’s a good JXON doc on MDN here[1]
>
>Maybe there’s some way to have a dynamic object as a property of XML so
>all XML methods could get proxied to XML.xmlObj?
>
>[1]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JXON
>
>On Nov 12, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So, given all that, if your XML class is dynamic, and attributes are
>>>just
>>> added to the instance as properties with the @prefix and child nodes
>>>are
>>> arrays of the child node name, I think that delete will do the right
>>>thing.
>>
>> Yes. attributes can be prefixed with “@“, but what about element names
>>which might conflict with function names? For example I could easily see
>>someone have some xml which looks like this:<catalog><name
>>title=“something”/></catalog> “name would then conflict with “name()”.
>>
>> I was thinking of having one array of elements and another for
>>properties. Mapping delete to something like that sounds tricky.
>
