On 5/16/06, Philip Romanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No I don't think so, a setter only defines the API to set the value. A getter
would compute and return a value. The 'motion' having a setter but no getter sounds like a bug to me, maybe Bret or Adam would know?
I'm not sure. I would think that would be transparent to the user, as long as they used the setAttribute API. But in reality, its faster to set a slot directly in some cases using "foo.bar = xxx" and I'm not sure what our current 'best practice' is regarding this. I think anything exposed to the end user should be via the setAttribute/getAttribute mechanism. (Anyone want to chime in here?)
Our getter/setter methods are designed to work via the setAttribute/getAttribute API. There is some proposal for setters and getters in the ECMAScript language spec but we don't support those at this time.
Hi Henry,
Here's one example I've been trying to figure out. I don't know whether
this is a documentation issue or a coding issue. The docs list many items
as a 'setter'. Sometimes this means you can use them as a getter too, but
other times you cannot.
For example, you can get the opacity from a view, but you cannot get the
motion from an animator. Both are listed as a 'getter' in the documentation.
<canvas debug="true">
<view id="view1" bgcolor="red" width="200" height="200">
<simplelayout axis="y" spacing="10"/>
<animator id="a1" motion="linear" attribute="x" from="50" to="100"
duration="500" start="true"/>
<text text="${'opacity is ' + view1.opacity}" resize="true"/>
<text text="${'motion is ' + a1.motion}" resize="true"/>
</view>
</canvas>
If you run this example, it will show the motion as 'undefined' rather than
'linear'. This isn't surprising because the object does not store the
motion type; it only saves the derived quantities.
My questions are:
- Should I be able to read back the value of any 'setter'?
No I don't think so, a setter only defines the API to set the value. A getter
would compute and return a value. The 'motion' having a setter but no getter sounds like a bug to me, maybe Bret or Adam would know?
- Should the docs indicate the relevant properties as getter/setter?
I'm not sure. I would think that would be transparent to the user, as long as they used the setAttribute API. But in reality, its faster to set a slot directly in some cases using "foo.bar = xxx" and I'm not sure what our current 'best practice' is regarding this. I think anything exposed to the end user should be via the setAttribute/getAttribute mechanism. (Anyone want to chime in here?)
Our getter/setter methods are designed to work via the setAttribute/getAttribute API. There is some proposal for setters and getters in the ECMAScript language spec but we don't support those at this time.
Thanks!
Phil
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
