Yeah, I thought about that too. For consistency it wouldn't hurt to put that argument in there as well. Though of all the methods, that's the least likely to take advantage of it.
I guess the thing to do here is apply it for stateless hint as well, as this is still new in 1.3 and 2.0 Eelco On 2/22/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what about the stateless hint.. But i guess thats overkill. I guess a behavior wouldn't be stateless for one and statefull for the other...? johan On 2/22/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, one thing I do not agree with is that enabled has no component > argument. Even if you wouldn't use it much in practice, it should have > to argument to be consistent with the other methods. > > Eelco > > > On 2/22/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > already in (1.3) need to port it to 2.0 > > > > On 2/22/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > > > Any objections now? (for 1.3 and 2.0) > > > > > > > > Because you can't remove a behavior from a component and now you > > > > also can't dynamically disabled one either. So thats a bit annoying. > > > > > > Yeah, defn. would be useful. +1 > > > > > > Al > > > > > >
