I think the issue is whether OpenLaszlo code (other than the LFC) should be aware of the idle-driven nature of the runtime. I think Antun is suggesting the answer should be "no", in other words that callOnIdle should be considered an implementation detail, a private feature of the LFC. Unfortunately we have existing callers doing legitimate work that can't be done otherwise, so we would need to document those necessary situations as well.
jim On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:34 PM, John Sundman wrote: > Antun, > > I don't understand the issue. Can you write up a JIRA task please? > > Thanks, > > jrs > > On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Antun Karlovac wrote: > >> Do we treat every case where one has to use LzIdle.callOnIdle as a >> bug? >> It seems to me that the right thing to do is: >> >> - Document all scenarios where you must use LzIdle.callOnIdle. >> - Treat any case that's not documented as a bug. >> >> I didn't see any reference to it in the DGuide, nor the Wiki. >> >> -Antun >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
