On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
>> No, the problem is that when saving a custom class, all properties
>> are recorded, so that we can tell what is changed in the subclass. I
>> need to find a way to handle these 'fake' properties better.
>
> Shouldn't you only save the properties that were "touched", and
> nothing
> else? I know I probably don't understand something, but finding out
> what
> is changed in the subclass should be as easy as looking at the
> properties assigned in the subclass, no?
No, because instances (and other classes) that use this class need to
have a base to compare *their* props against. Remember, a custom class
could then be used in another custom class, and this could then be
dropped into another class/form, etc.
A simple first-gen form can use the Dabo base class as defaults. A
third-gen class that is contained in another 2nd-gen class has no such
basis to determine what its default should be. Think of the whole
__mro__ complexity for multiple inheritance, and then multiply that by
unlimited embedding of composite classes.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users
Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
