It's easily possible for every runtime except DHTML+IE, see [1] for a plan.
[1]
"http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/2009-January/019461.html";
On 2/3/2009 5:34 AM, Max Carlson wrote:
How difficult would it be to add warnings for invalid/deleted nodes so
we can track down bugs in the source? Ideally this behavior would be
tied to a 'strict mode' that could be turned on or off to help diagnose
issues. We could use 'strict mode' to clean up the LFC, then allow
folks to turn it on for their LZX if they choose.
P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-01-27, at 14:52EST, André Bargull wrote:
On 1/27/2009 4:47 PM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-01-27, at 09:46EST, André Bargull wrote:
On 1/27/2009 1:03 AM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-01-26, at 18:24EST, André Bargull wrote:
Oh wait, you just said nothing in the LFC depends on the current
way things work. I really believed in you,
But wait, I said:
"where a child node _needs_ to access it's parent when the parent
is in the process of being deleted"
so, there may be cases where it _does_ access the parent, but does
it _need_ to? I don't think it does. So it is just a matter of
fixing those cases to be careful.
How do you plan to find those cases?
One way would be to set parent to null and then fix the bugs it
reveals.
It'd be great to have JS2 getters in this case. So you can generate a
debugger warning in one release and by that give people the chance to
update their sources. And in a next release, you'd apply the real
proposed change. That way user applications continue to work.
Like:
---
private var _parent:LzNode;
public function get parent () :LzNode {
if ($debug) {
if (_parent.__LZdeleted) {
Debug.warn("danger");
}
}
// return parent but give a warning when parent is already destroyed
return this._parent;
}
---
If wishes were horses...
Given that we don't have setters, what do you propose?
