The user would have to turn it off via settings. Sent from tablet device. Please excuse typos and brevity. On Apr 8, 2012 6:28 AM, "Sven Meier" <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Once this is introduced you can't turn it off. > > You might use some components which depend on their models being detached > externally, without you even being aware of it. > > Sven > > On 04/08/2012 12:15 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > >> i think it would be fine to have something like this, and enabled by >> default >> but only to have an option to turn it off >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 22:30, Igor >> Vaynberg<igor.vaynberg@gmail.**com<igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> -1 on adding it if its not enabled by default. its a trivial class >>> thats only about 40-50 lines of real code. adding it into extensions >>> and not using it will just add to code rot because i doubt many people >>> will go out looking for something like this since most of them wont >>> even know that its possible to do this. >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Sven Meier<s...@meiers.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The listener won't be set in IFrameworkSettings by default, right? >>>> IMHO it's better located in extensions then. >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/07/2012 01:37 AM, James Carman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Add the listener to core and if folks want to use it they can. You >>>>> >>>> could >>> >>>> have a component instantiation listener add the detach listener to the >>>>> components. Another option would be an aspect. >>>>> On Apr 6, 2012 12:43 PM, "Igor >>>>> Vaynberg"<igor.vaynberg@gmail.**com<igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> i wrote a IDetachListener that automatically detaches any IModel >>>>>> fields found on components. is this something we would be interested >>>>>> in for core? its been running in production for a while without any >>>>>> noticeable overhead and its nice not to have to implemenet onDetach() >>>>>> all the time just to forward it to secondary models. the only downside >>>>>> is that once we introduce this feature we can never remote it because >>>>>> doing so will break code. >>>>>> >>>>>> thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> -igor >>>>>> >>>>>> >
