Hey- Eric Lemoine wrote: > Tim, > > Some comments on your recent commit to vector-behavior (r7386). You > trigger "featuresdestroyed" while this event isn't in the EVENT_TYPES > array. Did you really want to trigger that event?
This was probably the result of a sloppy merge on my part. I'll take a closer look as time permits. > > In any way, I'm wondering if the vector layer should be responsible > for triggering "feature(s) destroyed" type events. One can do > feature.destroy() and in that case the layer doesn't even know the > feature is being destroyed. For that reason, I think it's the > feature's responsibility to trigger "featureremoved". Going further, I > think features should not be linked to a layer (currently features > have a "layer" property), vector layers should listen to > "featuredestroyed" events triggered by the features themselves and do > the job of removing the feature when such an event occurs. You mean give each feature an events instance? I don't think it's a bad idea to make more stuff observable - but I think we might want to look at any performance implications of this first (and perhaps consider how this could be done differently in 3.0). Tim > > Thanks, > -- > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > !DSPAM:4033,485b359d34206491211187! > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
