> I don't think issuing a warning is the correct way to go. Since in the > case that somebody needs this behaviour he is always bombarded by > warnings from his tree. This will clog up his logs and can be very > annoying. (Had a similar problem with an old version of datatable : ( ) > What I would suggest is that the tree simply ignores the fact that it > can't find certain nodes or even better make it that the user can turn > this behaviour on or off. > IMHO a warning is an error.
The warning would be in addition to the option to not save the expanded state info. So if Time were to use that option, he would never get a warning. So the option to ignore the expanded state info will solve his problem 100% without any warnings. I was addressing a second issue that might come up. Suppose two users are looking at the same tree. Suppose the first user does something to cause the node to disappear in the database. Now suppose user 2 clicks on that node. What do we do now? I think the answer depends on the situation. Are you just trying to record the user clicked on that node or are you trying to load a resource or do something in an action based on that click? Its a complicated problem (although not one that is likely to come up often.) I don't think you can just ignore it as you are suggesting. IMO a warning is appropriate if you decide to do nothing but we may still need to throw an exception in situations where we can't continue without a node. > Stefan sean
