异步模块定义(AMD)和紧耦合?
所以我一直在阅读 CommonJs Modules 规范并查看 dojo 实现和 google 闭包实现。这个概念非常酷,但我有一个使用 AMD 的应用程序紧密耦合的问题。
来自关闭站点的示例:
goog.provide('tutorial.notepad');
goog.provide('tutorial.notepad.Note');
goog.require('goog.dom');
goog.require('goog.ui.Zippy');
/**
* Iterates over a list of note data objects, creates a Note instance
* for each one, and tells the instance to build its DOM structure.
*/
tutorial.notepad.makeNotes = function(data, noteContainer) {
var notes = [];
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
var note =
new tutorial.notepad.Note(data[i].title, data[i].content, noteContainer);
notes.push(note);
note.makeNoteDom();
}
return notes;
};
/**
* Manages the data and interface for a single note.
*/
tutorial.notepad.Note = function(title, content, noteContainer) {
this.title = title;
this.content = content;
this.parent = noteContainer;
};
/**
* Creates the DOM structure for the note and adds it to the document.
*/
tutorial.notepad.Note.prototype.makeNoteDom = function() {
// Create DOM structure to represent the note.
this.headerElement = goog.dom.createDom('div',
{'style': 'background-color:#EEE'}, this.title);
this.contentElement = goog.dom.createDom('div', null, this.content);
var newNote = goog.dom.createDom('div', null,
this.headerElement, this.contentElement);
// Add the note's DOM structure to the document.
goog.dom.appendChild(this.parent, newNote);
return new goog.ui.Zippy(this.headerElement, this.contentElement);
};
所以我的问题是这里没有发生紧密耦合吗?如果您向应用程序提供tutorial.notepad,并且某些其他模块需要它,并且tutorial.notepad 中的功能更改,则这里不存在紧密耦合问题。基本上,您将应该能够独立存在的模块链接在一起,从而创建了一个脆弱的架构。
如果有人能在架构上下文中讨论这个问题,或者任何有关构建松散耦合 AMD 架构的资源,我可能会认为这是错误的。
So I have been reading up on the CommonJs Modules spec and looking at the dojo implementation and google closure implementation. The concept is pretty cool but I had the question of tight coupling of your application using AMD.
Example from closure site:
goog.provide('tutorial.notepad');
goog.provide('tutorial.notepad.Note');
goog.require('goog.dom');
goog.require('goog.ui.Zippy');
/**
* Iterates over a list of note data objects, creates a Note instance
* for each one, and tells the instance to build its DOM structure.
*/
tutorial.notepad.makeNotes = function(data, noteContainer) {
var notes = [];
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
var note =
new tutorial.notepad.Note(data[i].title, data[i].content, noteContainer);
notes.push(note);
note.makeNoteDom();
}
return notes;
};
/**
* Manages the data and interface for a single note.
*/
tutorial.notepad.Note = function(title, content, noteContainer) {
this.title = title;
this.content = content;
this.parent = noteContainer;
};
/**
* Creates the DOM structure for the note and adds it to the document.
*/
tutorial.notepad.Note.prototype.makeNoteDom = function() {
// Create DOM structure to represent the note.
this.headerElement = goog.dom.createDom('div',
{'style': 'background-color:#EEE'}, this.title);
this.contentElement = goog.dom.createDom('div', null, this.content);
var newNote = goog.dom.createDom('div', null,
this.headerElement, this.contentElement);
// Add the note's DOM structure to the document.
goog.dom.appendChild(this.parent, newNote);
return new goog.ui.Zippy(this.headerElement, this.contentElement);
};
So my question isn't there tight coupling occurring here? If you provide tutorial.notepad to the application and some other module requires it and functionality changes within tutorial.notepad isn't there a tight coupling problem here. Basically you are chaining together modules that should be able to live on there own thus creating a fragile architecture.
I could be thinking about this wrong, if anyone can talk about this in an architecture context that would be appreciated or any resources about architecting a loosely coupled AMD architecture.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论