On 01/12/2012 07:01 PM, aditya siram wrote: > The problem with this subclassing approach is that, doing this the > right way, I would have to cut-and-paste the "__createRequest" and a > number of other private functions wholesale into the subclass. All I > really wanted to do was swap the order of two lines in the "invoke" > method. > > I agree that mixins shouldn't have access to private members when > "include"ed but when "patch"ing, which is a hacky last-resort anyway, > I should have complete access.
The problem is that any form of mixin handling is done at runtime, while private optimization happens at compile time. You might want to open an enhancement request to turn these private methods in protected methods, so it would be easier to subclass and overwrite (You might still have to provide the entire _createRequest method, but would then be able to just use the other internal functions called from there). For the time being I think subclassing and "wholesale copying" would be the cleaner way, rather than patching privates through a mixin. T. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Mar 27 - Feb 2 Save $400 by Jan. 27 Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev2 _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
