Edit: I apologize for the crap code blocks. It looked fine when I posted it. This forum always gives me fits when I add code. Please copy and paste to your IDE and add proper line breaks so that the comments don't comment out the code. I'll try to fix it but I assume it'll still look to crap.
At a high level, the answer is yes, I think you can use the mixin pattern. I'm not sure if you would be butchering the spirit of mixins, but you could give it a go.
Use can use the dojoConfig to package your JavaScript files. Use the defined package's return block as a means of returning your mixins. The dojo packages would simply act as a namespace.
dojoConfig (file, or whatever):
var basePath = location.pathname.replace(/\/[^/]+$/, "");
var dojoConfig = {
async: true,
packages: [
{
name: "mixins",
location: basePath + "/js/mixins",
main: "mixins"
}
]
};mixins (file):
define(function () {
var fooMixins = {
doThis: function() {
// do something
},
doThat: function() {
// do something else
}
}
var barMixins = {
doThis: function() {
// do something
},
doThat: function() {
// do something else
}
}
return {
fooMixin: function () {
return fooMixins;
},
barMixin: function () {
return barMixins;
}
};
});mixin usage (file):
define(['mixins'], function (mixins) {
return {
fooMixinUsage: function () {
// do stuff and extend foo mixin via mixins.fooMixin()
},
barMixinUsage: function () {
// do stuff and extend bar mixin via mixins.barMixin()
},
};
});Note: I have no idea if this works. I didn't test this. It might just be using mixins just to use them. This could be a complete hack with no value at all.
