Hi Henry, Thanks for the details. This is really useful information. I stumbled into this issue while working on a unit test. The test tries to verify the initial and final state of the object before/after animation.
Phil >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. _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
