[dojo-contributors] dojo.Stateful - long live r23032!

Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 23:00:35 EST 2011


Hi Rawld,

Inline.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Rawld Gill <rgill at altoviso.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 March 2011 13:53:40 Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>> Hi Rawld,
>>
>> Inline.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Rawld Gill <rgill at altoviso.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 10 March 2011 06:31:47 Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Bill Keese <bill at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
>> >> > We didn't agree to this at the meeting (or at any other time).
>> >>
>> >> Correct, its MO -- tautologically, I disagree with anyone who
>> >> disagrees with me on something as fundamental as this :-)
>> >
>> > Why is it fundamental?
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Its an important interface in Dojo in that its increasingly pervasive.
>>
>> I believe I have replied to most of your questions to me already,
>> including why connect() is not the answer, please see comments #4 and
>> #7 on #12399, or last meeting's logs. If you do want me to further
>> clarify on anything after reading those comments, let me know and I'd
>> be happy to provide more input.
>
> Yes, I've read all that and was at the meeting yesterday. I'll give my
> feedback on the ticket.
>
<snip/>

Thanks, I've replied there.


>> I will jump to your summary opinion and make one comment:
>> > I save my *opinion* for last: dojo.stateful.watch docs seem fundamentally
>> > correct, which make the implementation incorrect.
>>
>> <snap/>
>>
>> Perhaps (I cannot speak to the original intent), but note that this is
>> how dojo.Stateful has behaved in 1.5, 1.6 and continues to behave in
>> trunk today. Anything else is a regression (and its worse, because it
>> allows no way to get old behavior without breaking the Stateful
>> paradigm).
>
> I agree that the argument to not break back compat is strong,
<snap/>

Indeed. Note that the top of the thread is purely about back compat.
Its not a subjective issue.


> although not
> based on strictly on engineering rational.
>
<snip/>

I disagree, but thats a separate discussion.

Best,
-Rahul


> Best,
> Rawld


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list