[Laszlo-dev] disabling delegates

[Henry Minsky]

This is what happens when we start writing unit tests :-)


On 4/11/06, Adam Wolff <adam at laszlosystems.com> wrote:
>
> the advantage of delegate.disable is that it's faster than unregistering.
> I wonder if the disable method is used anywhere in the LFC. If it's not,
> we should consider removing it. If it is, we should check for null.
>
> A
>
> On Apr 11, Henry Minsky wrote:
>
> > There is a method for disabling a delegate which is currently
> implemented as
> >
> > LzDelegate.prototype.disable = function (){
> >     if ( !this.enabled ) return;
> >     this.enabled = false;
> >     this.disc = this.c;
> >     this.c = null;
> > }
> >
> > This has the unfortunate side effect of causing an error in DHTML
> runtime if
> > you then try to call
> > this delegate, because the inner loop of LzEvent.sendEvent does
> >
> >     for (var i = dll; i >= 0; i--){
> >         d = this.delegateList[ i ];
> >         //pointer may be bad due to deletions
> >         if ( d && ! d.event_called){
> >             d.event_called = true; //this delegate has been called
> >             calledDelegates.push( d );
> >             // d.execute( sd ); inlined
> >             // We don't worry about deleted contexts here, because
> >             // we assume that delegates registered on events are
> >             // properly managed
> >             d.c[d.f]( sd );
> >         }
> >     }
> >
> > And d.c will be null, causing an error in 'real' javascript. Should I
> put a
> > check here for the disabled flag,
> > or should we bind d.c in LzDelegate to some inert event while it is
> > disabled?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henry Minsky
> > Software Architect
> > hminsky at laszlosystems.com
> >
>



--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
hminsky at laszlosystems.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/attachments/20060411/9eed9d22/attachment.html