Something like this:
var f = function (){
this.setAttribute( "y" , this.immediateparent.height /2
- this.height /2);
}
f.dependencies = function (target) {
return [target.immediateparent, 'height', target, 'height'];
}
this.applyConstraint('x', f);
I.e., create a dependencies function for these functions. You could
be clever with these functions and use a closure to decide whether to
divide by 2 for 'middle', etc. and reduce the lines of code a bunch.
function setValign ( valign ){
var factor = 1;
if ( valign == "top" ) {
this.releaseConstraint('y');
this.setAttribute('y', 0);
return;
} else if ( valign == "middle" ){
var factor = 2;
} else if ( valign == "bottom" ){
} else {
Debug.error("Invalid value %w for %s.valign", valign, this);
}
var f = function (){
this.setAttribute( "y" , this.immediateparent.height / factor
- this.height / factor);
}
f.dependencies = function (target) {
return [target.immediateparent, 'height', target, 'height'];
}
this.applyConstraint('y', f);
}
Also, the target is just the this argument to applyConstraint, so you
don't really need to pass a separate target parameter, I guess.
On 2007-10-16, at 16:52 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote:
That makes sense, to pass the object down instead of the
dependencies list.
There's only a couple of callers to applyConstraint right now, but
one of
them is this one caller in LaszloView that makes it's own
dependencies list:
function setPosConstraint ( v , f , widthorheight ){
var d = [ v , widthorheight , this , widthorheight ];
this.applyConstraint( widthorheight == "width" ? "x" : "y" ,
f , d );
}
How do think I should handle that? I could make an object and put a
.dependencies on it and pass that I guess.
On 10/16/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact, wouldn't it make more sense to move all the logic about
dependencies inside applyConstraint so it will be handled correctly
in one place and update all the callers? I see no reason to have the
callers compute the dependencies out of line, you just need to pass
the target (this) down to applyConstraint.
On 2007-10-16, at 16:40 EDT, P T Withington wrote:
Not approved.
1) This code should be modeled on the known-working code in LzNode:
if (rp instanceof Function && ('dependencies' in rp)) {
this.applyConstraint( p , rp , rp.dependencies.call
(this) );
}
rather than creating the mystery `_t` attribute.
2) There seems to be another branch of the code that replicates the
same bug which should also be rewritten in modern style.
3) What about the case of a $once constraint? Will it be handled
correctly? In LzNode when there are no dependencies, the
constraint function is still called at least once. I don't see in
this code where that is handled.
On 2007-10-16, at 15:24 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote:
Change 20071016-hqm-4 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2007-10-16
15:19:46 EDT
in /cygdrive/c/users/hqm/openlaszlo/trunk
for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk
Summary: fix for DHTML replication bug
New Features:
Bugs Fixed: LPP-4893
Technical Reviewer: andre
QA Reviewer: ptw
Doc Reviewer:
Documentation:
check for null dependencies function before calling it
Release Notes:
Details:
Tests:
test case from bug, smokecheck, amazon app
Files:
M WEB-INF/lps/lfc/data/LzReplicationManager.lzs
Changeset: http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20071016-
hqm-4.tar
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
