[OpenAjaxIDE] Gadgets TF requests restoration of onchangePattern

Bertrand Le Roy Bertrand.Le.Roy at microsoft.com
Thu Aug 21 20:56:25 PDT 2008


Right, that was my initial argument for keeping the full pattern, but the pattern that is being proposed now is way too weak to satisfactorily handle that scenario, as has been demonstrated before.

From: ide-bounces at openajax.org [mailto:ide-bounces at openajax.org] On Behalf Of Rich Thompson
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:57 PM
To: ide at openajax.org; ide-bounces at openajax.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAjaxIDE] Gadgets TF requests restoration of onchangePattern


Another strong argument is handling existent widgets ... unlikely to have all followed some pattern we would define.

Rich Thompson

From:

Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM at IBMUS

To:

Bertrand Le Roy <Bertrand.Le.Roy at microsoft.com>

Cc:

"ide at openajax.org" <ide at openajax.org>

Date:

08/21/2008 08:08 PM

Subject:

Re: [OpenAjaxIDE] Gadgets TF requests restoration of onchangePattern


________________________________



> So what’s the argument for having the pattern at all? (other than
> it’s already implemented)

I'm not sure what all of the arguments are, but here are ones that I remember from today's phone call.

Here is a weak argument: because the widget author prefers to name his callbacks in a different way

A stronger argument is that some developers will want to offer a single callback function to cover all properties, such as propertyChangeCallback(), especially if his widget has many similar properties. Then he could say:

<properties onchangePattern-"propertyChangeCallback">
<property name="prop1" .../>
<property name="prop2" .../>
etc.
</properties>

Jon

_______________________________________________
IDE mailing list
IDE at openajax.org
http://openajax.org/mailman/listinfo/ide

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openajax.org/pipermail/ide/attachments/20080821/3ff47a28/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the IDE mailing list