On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Eric Lemoine
<eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM, RICHARD Didier <didier.rich...@ign.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> 2/ in test 4, if you remove the initialize function from B and
>>>>>>> overload
>>>>>>> A,
>>>>>>> the B constructor is still the previous A's constructor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. To address this one I see no other solution than patching
>>>>>> OpenLayers.Class. See the patch attached to this email, and my
>>>>>> test_overload_5 test function. The Class.html tests continue to pass
>>>>>> with my patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this works in OL 2.11, not in OL 2.10 for me !-(
>>>>> I guess there is something similar to do in OL 2.10 ?
>>>>
>>>> Your initial mail was about OpenLayers trunk/2.11 introducing
>>>> regressions. Now the failing test that remains is OL 2.10-only, so OL
>>>> trunk/2.11 works better than OL 2.10 for you. Yippee! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> My initial mail was really about regression between 2.10 and 2.11 !-)
>>>
>>>> (Not sure it is worth "fixing" OL 2.10 for that.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, one of my test is versus the current release (2.10) and I am sure
>>> there are users that will migrate slower than us (I mean OL and IGNF) ...
>>>
>>> I do think it is worth fixing it ... at least to prove there is no
>>> regression !-D
>>>
>>
>> I've got somethinf working, hence ugly :-)
>>
>> OpenLayers.overload= function(P,F) {
>> var pProtoInitialize= typeof(F.initialize)=="function"?
>> P.prototype.initialize
>> : null;
>> OpenLayers.Util.extend(P.prototype, F);
>> if (pProtoInitialize!==null) {
>> // override sub-class having same constructor:
>> for (var pn in P) {
>> if (typeof(P[pn])=='function' &&
>> P[pn].prototype.initialize===pProtoInitialize) {
>> var f= {};
>> eval('f= {"initialize":'+F.initialize.toString()+'}');
>> P[pn]= OpenLayers.overload(P[pn],f);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> return P;
>> };
>
> Hi Didier. Just to say that I personally wouldn't rely on an overload
> function that assumes subclasses use their parent constructors as
> their namespaces.
I can't imagine a clean/correct implementation of your "overload"
function that would make test_overload_5 pass with 2.10. If we apply
the OL patch that I've proposed we can address this test case in 2.11
(or 2.12). I still don't understand if that would be ok for you.
function test_overload_5(t) {
// overload constructor of parent class
t.plan(1);
var A = OpenLayers.Class({
initialize: function() {
this.a = "foo";
}
});
var B = OpenLayers.Class(A, {});
A = overload(A, {
initialize: function() {
this.a = "bar";
}
});
var b = new B;
t.eq(b.a, "bar", "ctor overloaded");
}
--
Eric Lemoine
Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex
Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
Mail : eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com
http://www.camptocamp.com
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
d...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
