Yes, the recursion in the set method I couldn't get working. But I've
patched the set method to accept the third parameter that I suggested.
I was just thinking out loud because maybe it's a common case then could
make into the framework.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Hirtzbruch <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> Hello Krycek,
>
> couldn't you just define your own set-Method by overriding the built-in
> method? This method could than check if the property exists and apply if it
> does - otherwise it simply returns without throwing an error. I didn't find
> out if the combined generic setter is overridable but as the getProperty
> and
> setProperty are I think you could try this.
>
> Well - regards so far,
> Daniel
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/Recurtion-in-Object-set-tp4473427p4475537.html
> Sent from the qooxdoo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
> Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the
> business
> Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
> Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
> _______________________________________________
> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
