I know this is heresy, perhaps, but let me wonder for a minute whether the ability to replicate an inline-declared customized instance is really worth all the complexity it requires of the runtime. Wouldn't we get most/all of the bang (if a little less elegance) if we fell back to specifying classname and initargs, and creating each replicated view from those values, instead of partially creating, then cloning, a view?
(Of course, this is in the context of the proposal, still on the table, to move to an explicit replication scheme, where replication always happens (even for n=1) when asked for, and never happens if not requested.) So, concretely: <class name="myview" extends="view">...</class> <replicate datapath="..." classname="myview" initargs="..."/> would replace <view datapath="..." ...>...</view> jim On Jun 2, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Adam Wolff wrote: > yeah, things definitely can get destroyed before they're done > instantiating. That's the purpose of the __LZdeleted flag. Another > possibility would be to just set this flag and not run destroy code > until > node.initialize is done. > > A > > On Jun 2, P T Withington wrote: > >> Henry and I are debugging replication in DHTML, and found an >> interesting >> effect: When a node is initialized and is given a datapath it >> gets replaced >> by a replication manager when applyArgs happens. If pooling is >> off, the >> replication manager will destroy the node, while it is still in >> node.initialize. So it appears node.initialize needs to be >> prepared to exit >> early after apply args, otherwise it tries to continue >> initializing the node >> and trips over things, like LZinstantiationDone having been set to >> null by >> destroy. > _______________________________________________ > Laszlo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
