It sounds like we shouldn't need these. I wonder if they're left over
from when mixins were dynamically applied at runtime?
Henry Minsky wrote:
While I'm tracking down the instance mixin bug with nested views, I was
noticing that when we declare a mixin
in LZX, we are emitting an actual class declaration for it into the
output object file.
e.g., in source code you have
<mixin name="boxmodel">
...
</mixin
And that ends up emitting script code for
dynamic class $lzc$class_boxmodel extends
LzView { ... }
But is it really necessary to actually have the mixin class as an
instantiable class at runtime? People aren't ever expected to instantiate
a mixin by itself, right? And the script compiler copies out the
methods and attributes to construct interstitial
classes at compile time, so we don't actually need to emit an actual
class definition for the mixin class itself into the output file?
It wouldn't save much space in practice I guess, since most apps don't
have a lot of mixins declared, but it would reduce the object file a little
if we didn't put these in..
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
Regards,
Max Carlson
OpenLaszlo.org
