Hi Tucker, Thanks for the comments. I did try and make the conditionals no more complicated than they have to. But you caught a few I missed so I think I should change all/most of them to be equivalent to their original version.
If you don't mind, I'd also like to prepare a list of code snippets for you to look at. I didn't make any assumptions about object references in the file I was editing. Because of this, I used the 'in' operator rather than making other modifications. For example, your comment in LzView of not declaring an event. I did not assume that 'this.immediateparent' is always an instance of LzView. If this is true, I'll define the event and remove the conditional. Sorry for make more work for you. Phil >Not approved, yet. This is great work, but a big change to the core, >so we need to be careful. > >For testing, I would ensure that all the demo apps still work as >expected. I realize this assumes you know how the demos are expected >to work. Perhaps Amy could commandeer some QA resources to do this. >Basically, my concern here is that we are mucking with the core of >the system, and we need more coverage than just the smoke test to >verify that we have not broken anything. > >Also, I spotted a few things that I would do slightly differently, >and what I think might be a pervasive transformation error. In a >number of places you have transformed: _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
