+<method name="update" args="ignore=null">
+</method>
Argument name should be "e" not "ignore", see doc-comment:
+ @param Any e: The event data that caused this update. Typically
+ unused since various events may cause an update.
+ @param Any e: Ignored. <code>unlock</code> accepts an argument as
+ a convenience so that it can be used as an event handler method.
+ -->
+<method name="unlock" args="ignore=null">
Doc-comment needs to be updated to reflect new argument name. (Slightly
different case than in update(), because for unlock() the argument is
explicitly declared as ignorable).
if ( this.locked == locked ) return;
+ this.locked = locked;
if ( locked ){
this.lock();
} else {
this.unlock();
}
lock() and unlock() set locked to "true" resp. "false", so the
additional line "this.locked = locked;" seems to be unnecessary.
+<!--- @access private
* Just used to effect a type cast of immediateparent to LzView
- */
- var vip:LzView = null;
+ -->
+ <attribute name="vip"/>
I'd just remove this attribute, there is no type cast anymore.
On 7/14/2010 6:21 AM, Max Carlson wrote:
Change 20100709-maxcarlson-v by maxcarl...@friendly on 2010-07-09 13:21:08 PDT
in /Users/maxcarlson/openlaszlo/trunk-clean
for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk
Summary: UPDATED: Move layout baseclass from the LFC to an LZX include
Bugs Fixed: LPP-9180 - Move non-essential parts of the LFC to LZX includes
(partial)
Technical Reviewer: ptw
QA Reviewer: hminsky
Details: Updated to address Tucker's comments:
Issues:
1) I don't like the idea of making this a component if it has to call private
API's (e.g., __LzApplyArgs). That seems like a bad road to start down. I
can't tell if it really needs to do that, or that's just the way it was
written. Is there a way to write this without using private API's?
Fixed to use onconstruct handler instead.
2) I don't understand this comment in layout.lzx#94:
// ignore special default value of 2 until __parentInit();
especially given this change in construct:
// set as early as possible - can't wait for setter to be called
this.locked = args.locked;
Does every layout get a `locked` init arg?
I updated to address this. Now, construct() sets to 2, so any args can
override.
Questions:
1) Is it a bug that LPS components have to explicitly include other components
rather than rely on auto-includes?
I suppose relying on auto-includes would be convenient, but the current way is
much more explicit.
2) What's this about?
<script>
if ($as3) {
} else {
LzLayout = lz.layout; // publish for compatibility
}
</script>
I thought the old names would have been deprecated long enough now that we
would not need them?
Agreed. I removed that block.
Otherwise:
LaszloLayout,Library - Move to lps/components/utils/layouts/, rewrite to use
LZX syntax. Add child views in onconstruct handler instead of overriding
__LZapplyArgs().
lzx-autoincludes.properties - Add layout.lzx
utils/layouts/* - Explicitly include layout.lzx
Tests: Component sampler and debugger run as before.
Files:
D WEB-INF/lps/lfc/controllers/LaszloLayout.lzs
M WEB-INF/lps/lfc/controllers/Library.lzs
M WEB-INF/lps/misc/lzx-autoincludes.properties
M lps/components/utils/layouts/library.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/wrappinglayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/stableborderlayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/constantlayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/simplelayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/reverselayout.lzx
A + lps/components/utils/layouts/layout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/resizelayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/constantboundslayout.lzx
M lps/components/utils/layouts/simpleboundslayout.lzx
Changeset:
http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20100709-maxcarlson-v.tar
