I guess from your email, I thought the argument was supposed to be methodname, rather than method, which seemed clearer to me. Thanks for pointing me to the wiki page.. perhaps the category should change from PendingProposal? :) If that's what everyone agreed on, i don't need to rock the boat. I was just confused by the old thread and lack of docs.
I reported a bug about the reference page:
http://www.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-2312
Thanks for the info,
Sarah
On Sun, Jul 9, 2006 at 1:42 PM, Jim Grandy wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:22 AM, Sarah Allen wrote:
>
>> Hey Jim,
>>
>> Did you ever make this fix? I'm finally using this syntax and took
>> a look at the docs (trunk about a week ago), unchanged from the 3.3
>> reference page:
>>
> Yes, I did, a long time ago. It should be solid against the spec:
>
>
> John's spent some time converting examples, but I don't know if he's
> written anything in the DevGuide about the new syntax. John?
>
>> It looks like methodName is still called method, which I find a bit
>> confusing. Will this be fixed for 3.4?
>>
> Do you mean the <handler> attribute is still called @name? I found
> that confusing as well, but I've gotten used to it and besides it's
> what we agreed to in the proposal.
>> There's also no description of what "method" does so I would guess
>> it is safe to change to it. It would be hard to figure out how to
>> use that syntax from the reference as is. Also, the description of
>> name seems to be inherited from node, which is not particularly
>> helpful.
>>
> @method is used to point a handler at a method you have separately
> declared. It's useful if you want to call the method directly:
>
> <handler name="onmyevent" method="handlemyevent"/>
> <method name="handlemyevent">
> ...
> </method>
>
> Perhaps a bug or two filed against the RefGuide would be in order?
>
> Thanks,
>
> jim
>
>> Thanks,
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 8:47 PM, Jim Grandy wrote:
>>
>>
>> No worries, I'm pretty bad at reading them!
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>>
>> jim
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Henry Minsky wrote:
>>
>> I'm terrible at writing .rnc schemas...
>>
>> I'll send you the test cases I was using as soon as I can find them.
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/06, Jim Grandy wrote: I'm converting the base components to
>> use <event> and <handler>, and ran into something I don't think is
>> quite right.
>>
>> The proposal ( http://wiki.openlaszlo.org/Event_and_handler_tags )
>> suggests that <handler> should have two forms: <http://
>> wiki.openlaszlo.org/Event_and_handler_tags>
>>
>> <handler name="eventName" [reference="..."] [args="..."]>
>> ...
>> </handler>
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>> <handler name="eventName" [reference="..."] method="methodName" />
>>
>> But the schema entry looks like this:
>>
>>
>> handler =
>> element handler {
>> ( nameAttribute |
>> ( nameAttribute? &
>> ## The name of the method that this handler will call
>> attribute method {string} &
>> ## If this attribute is present, it is a _javascript_ _expression_
>> ## that evaluates to an object. The code in this method
>> executes
>> ## when this object sends the event named by the @a{event}
>> ## attribute. This attribute may be present only if
>> ## the @a{event} attribute is present too.
>> [a:defaultValue="this"]
>> attribute reference {reference}?)) &
>> ## The parameter names of this method. The value of this
>> attribute
>> ## is a comma-separated list of _javascript_ identifiers.
>> [a:defaultValue=""
>> lza:modifiers="final"]
>> attribute args {string}? &
>> text
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> I read this as allowing
>>
>>
>> <handler name="eventName" [args="..."]> ... </handler>
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>> <handler [name="eventName"] method="methodName" [reference="..."]
>> [args="..."]> ... </handler>
>>
>>
>> Whether text is allowed or not (it shouldn't if @method is given) is
>> one problem. Another is that I can't write
>>
>>
>> <handler name="eventName" reference="..." args="..."> ... </handler>
>>
>>
>> The workaround for the second is (I think) to split the handler
>> definition into a handler and a method, but I shouldn't have to do
>> this.
>>
>>
>> Third, the comment says about @method that "this attribute may be
>> present only if the @a{event} attribute is present too," but there's
>> no @event attribute in handler. Does this mean to say @name instead
>> of @event?
>>
>>
>> If everyone agrees, I'll propose a change to the schema to fix both
>> of these problems. I don't see a unit test file; Henry, did you
>> write one when you did the initial implementation?
>>
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Laszlo-dev mailing list
>> [email protected] <_javascript_:lzSetCanvasAttribute
>> ('js_mailto', '[email protected]') >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Henry Minsky
>> Software Architect
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <_javascript_:lzSetCanvasAttribute
>> ('js_mailto', '[EMAIL PROTECTED]') >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Laszlo-dev mailing list
>> [email protected] <_javascript_:lzSetCanvasAttribute
>> ('js_mailto', '[email protected]') >
>> <_javascript_:lzSetCanvasAttribute('js_mailto', 'Laszlo-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]') >
>> www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev>
>>
>
_______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
