On 2009-07-10, at 09:51EDT, André Bargull wrote: > On 7/10/2009 3:20 PM, P T Withington wrote: >> Not approved. >> >> When Max submitted his change r13009 for review, I asked him: >> >> >>> 5. Isn't making resize default to false for input text an API >>> change? >>> >> >> So maybe he took that out, in response to my comment? >> >> My question still remains. This is going to fix Amazon, but it >> will be an API change that will potentially break other >> applications that were depending on the existing default. >> >> [...] >> >> I think we need to ask: >> >> 1) Should input text resize default to true? If so, what does >> that mean? (Since, as we see, you can't enter anything if it is >> initially empty). >> > > Hmm, you wanted it to default to true: > "http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/2008-June/015718.html > "
Thanks for reminding me! LPP-5678 was complaining that resizing inputtext _did_ work in LPS3, it was just not the default. But in LPS4, we change the default for <text> resize from false to true. And since <inputtext> is a subclass of <text>, it inherited that default. Given that was an explicit API change, and has been in LPS4 since forever, I still think it would be a (potentially breaking) API change to change the default for <inputtext> back. Although, I can see that it doesn't make sense to resize an empty input text, LPP-5678 definitely wanted <inputtext> to size to its initial content. How do we reconcile this? _______________________________________________ Laszlo-reviews mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-reviews
