> Hi Eric, Hi Didier
I have added tests for your usage patterns. See <http://trac.osgeo.org/openlayers/changeset/12211>. > With your proposed patch, I am very happy (for the moment, my tests are > working, but I still have some issues --surely be related to 2.10 to 2.11 > port in our Geoportal's API--). > > If your patch is included in 2.11, it would be great. I think it'd be safe to include it. Here's the ticket: <http://trac.osgeo.org/openlayers/ticket/3454>. The patch is attached to it. But I'd like to bring something to your attention: my patch works because the constructor passed to "overload" (which I renamed "overwrite" in the tests) and the constructor returned by "overload" share the same prototype object (See code below). And what's important to know if that a closure is created in OpenLayers.Class when defining the constructor function, this closure will prevent the garbage collector from reclaiming the memory associated to constructors overwritten by the "overload" function. I don't think that's a big deal if you don't overwrite too many OpenLayers constructors in the GeoPortal library. function test_overwrite_5(t) { // overwrite constructor of parent class, which itself // doesn't defined "initialize" t.plan(2); var A = OpenLayers.Class({ initialize: function() { this.a = "foo"; } }); var B = OpenLayers.Class(A, {}); var _A = A; A = overwrite(A, { initialize: function() { this.a = "bar"; } }); var b = new B; t.ok(A.prototype === _A.prototype, "A and _A share the prototype"); t.eq(b.a, "bar", "ctor overwritten"); } -- 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
