-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15460/#review28824
-----------------------------------------------------------



https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/trunk/rave-portal-resources/src/main/webapp/static/script/portal/rave_ui.js
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/15460/#comment55842>

    Does off unbind events bound with the click function or only the on 
function?


- Matt Franklin


On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:30 p.m., Stanton Sievers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/15460/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 12, 2013, 7:30 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for rave.
> 
> 
> Bugs: RAVE-1078
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-1078
> 
> 
> Repository: rave
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> From the JIRA:
> 
> The HomeView that gets registered in rave_ui.js will bind click events every 
> time the view's render() method is called.  This causes problems, for 
> instance when the widget is maximized and then minimized, because the 
> elements to which the events were bound are never removed nor are the events 
> ever unbound.  
> 
> Thus, in the case of maximizing and then minimizing a widget (i.e. navigating 
> to the "canvas" view and then back to the "home" view) the events are bound 
> multiple times.
> 
> You can see this behavior if you set a breakpoint in the "maximize()" method 
> defined in HomeView.prototype.render in rave_ui.js.  If you repeat the 
> process of maximizing and minimizing the widget, the "maximize()" method will 
> get called more than once.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/trunk/rave-portal-resources/src/main/webapp/static/script/portal/rave_ui.js
>  1541190 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15460/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Existing tests pass.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stanton Sievers
> 
>

Reply via email to