Actually, the fix can probably be simplified to replacing the original: e.type = 'password’; with e.type = value ? 'password' : 'text’;
I’m personally ok with keeping that change in the original bead. > On Jun 5, 2017, at 7:15 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The removal code doubles the practical size of the bead. Definitely not PAYG. > > Subclassing the bead and overidding set strand on JS or creating a new one is > definitely the way to go. > > Harbs > >> On Jun 5, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> I would recommend handling removal in an enhanced bead, maybe call it >>> RemovablePasswordInputBead. Not everybody will need to remove the bead so >>> PAYG would say to offer folks the original and your version. >> >> I’d prefer not to. >> >> There is no extra PAYG cost on the AS side and a null check on the JS side. >> >> Copy and pasting 100 lines of code to a new class just to make those simple >> changes doesn't seem like PAYG to me. What do other people think? >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >
