They are effectively already unified in the (pseudo) namespace `lz`.
So the refguide should just refer to all classes as `lz.<tagname>`
(and deprecate the `Lz*` names).
My main question would be whether we should consider more distinctive
orthography for our namespaces (before the name `lz` becomes
widespread).
On 2007-01-04, at 11:57 EST, Jim Grandy wrote:
Which raises the question: what are our current thoughts on
unifying LFC class names to match their tag names? This would
certainly simplify the refguide, and would have other benefits as
well. But last time we discussed it, there were reasons it couldn't
be done, I think.
jim
On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:23 AM, P T Withington wrote:
Approved.
[If we were ever to undertake overhauling this code, I suspect the
question that really wants to be asked is not:
foo.constructor.tagname == '<user-defined-class>'
but:
foo instanceof <user-defined-class>
]
On 2007-01-02, at 10:49 EST, Philip Romanik wrote:
Change 20070102-Philip-6 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2007-01-02
10:38:09 EST
in /cygdrive/f/laszlo/svn/src/svn/openlaszlo/branches/legals
Summary: Change 'classname' to 'constructor.tagname'
New Features:
Bugs Fixed:
Technical Reviewer: ptw
QA Reviewer: (pending)
Doc Reviewer: (pending)
Documentation:
Release Notes:
Details:
Charting package needs to be upgraded to run on legals.
this.classname doesn't exist on legals. this.constructor.tagname
(or this.constructor.classname) is used instead.
Tests:
Files:
M lps/components/charts/styles/styleparser.lzx
M lps/components/charts/styles/chartstyle.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/horizontalaxis.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/dataseries.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/legend.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/databar.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/virtualdrawview.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/chart.lzx
Changeset: http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20070102-
Philip-6.tar
