The smoking gun... I guess I had my chance to object! Rats.
On 2008-10-02, at 20:02EDT, André Bargull wrote:
On 10/2/2008 10:22 PM, André Bargull wrote:
On 10/2/2008 8:57 PM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2008-10-02, at 10:55EDT, André Bargull wrote:
In the default event system, what you get if you don't write a
custom setter, sends an event every time you call
setAttribute. It does _not_ make any optimization to not send
events if you happen to set an attribute to a value it already
has.
A side note for the interested reader:
It's possible to turn on manually this optimization if you pass
as the third argument to "setAttribute()" ?true?, e.g.
foo.setAttribute("text", "hello world!", true)
(That way the setter is not called when the value did not change.)
My head hurts trying to process that logic. Too many negatives.
This seems like an incredibly dangerous optimization, because if
you have a custom setter, how can the generic code know whether or
not the value 'changed'? E.g., suppose the custom setter ensures
your value is in a particular range or rounded to a particular
granularity?
When did setAttribute grow this featureXXXXXXXbug? I don't recall
seeing an API review for this.
It's there since 4.0.5
I'm searching for a specific changeset, but take a look what I found:
r6110 | max | 2007-08-17 05:11:57 -0700 (Fri, 17 Aug 2007) | 24
lines
Change 20070816-maxcarlson-f by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2007-08-16
20:44:10 PDT
in /Users/maxcarlson/openlaszlo/wafflecone
for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/branches/wafflecone
Summary: UPDATED: Add flag to only setAttribute() if it the value
passed in changed.
New Features:
Bugs Fixed:
Technical Reviewer: ptw
QA Reviewer: promanik
Doc Reviewer: (pending)
Documentation:
Release Notes:
Details: Add a flag that only sets the attribute if its value
changed. It's a common pattern to only set an attribute when it
changed. W
ith inlining of setAttribute it will also make sense for performance.
Tests: IWFM
