Jim Grandy wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Max Carlson wrote: > >>>> Do we need to maintain the complexity of multiple timers on a >>>> delegate, or is that a generality of the old system that was >>>> actually never used? Can we change to only allow a single timer per >>>> delegate? >>>> >>> I couldn't find a case where it was explicitly used, but I also >>> couldn't prove to myself that it wasn't inadvertently or >>> surreptitiously used somewhere. If we dropped this, it should be >>> dropped in Legals. >>> >>> But I'd be in favor of the change -- I'll even write the RFC >>> proposing it. There are some other improvements that could be made to >>> the API. >>> >> >> I'm pretty sure we need this functionality. >> > > Can you expand on this? Where is it used, do you know?
I can't think of any concrete case where it's used, but since it's public functionality an RFC is the way to go for Legals. The studios tree did have some instances, but it was unclear if the same delegate was really being registered twice. One argument in favor of multiple timeouts per delegate is setTimeout/Interval allow multiple timeouts for a single callback. Perhaps this is what folks expect. -Max _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
