On Jun 18, 2010, at 6:05 AM, ext Zac Spitzer wrote: > Every one is more than welcome to share their opinions and examples of their > experiences and frustrations with Ol.
If you want to do that, take it to a separate thread, please. Let this one be about discussing the current issue of what we use for constructor arguments. -- Chris > I had the exact same experience myself. > > I'd like to see a debug build which validates argument collections, both for > required and unknown arguments. One which can be stripped out when building a > single file. Also with some generous debug messages, as with my email the > other day with the JSON issue. > > Is it possible to generate full parameter examples via natural docs? > On 18 Jun 2010 18:49, "Richard Duivenvoorde" <rdmaili...@duif.net> wrote: > > > > Don't have so much credit to interfere, but > > > > as a user I have seen users (mw) who made the mistake with eg the > > WMS-layer by putting param-arguments into the options-object and vice versa > > > > what about always 2 object arguments: > > - the required > > - the optional (optional :-) ) > > making it possible to check for the required (off course also possible > > with one object!) > > but for users googling for examples and copying code, it makes sense to > > know that the first object will always be the required ones (so in all > > googled code snippets the same). > > Seeing code with 8 parameters (even in one object), not knowing which > > ones are really required is not that easy. > > > > (though you can always read the api docs offcourse...) > > speaking of api-docs, it would be really nice to have the inherited > > required args, functions, props into a class definition also > > > > Regards, > > > > Richard Duivenvoorde > > > > On 06/18/2010 01:22 AM, Schuyler Erle wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Tim Schaub wrote: > >> > >>> In adding the WMTS layer, I created a constructor that takes a single > >>> argument. If others agree that this is the way forward, I think there > >>> is sense in getting used to it before 3.0. > >>> > >>> I am bringing this up here because Chris objected to my commit of the > >>> WMTS layer and reopened the ticket. > >>> > >>> If anybody else has an opinion about the many versus one argument > >>> constructor, please weigh in. > >> > >> I think that we can address this by placing a practical guideline on the > >> number of arguments to any function in OL. For example, we could express a > >> style guideline that any method that might take more than 3 arguments > >> should use a dict instead of OR in addition to one or two fixed arguments. > >> We can then require that any violation of this guideline be accompanied by > >> a strong justification in the code comments. > >> > >> SDE > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dev mailing list > >> Dev@openlayers.org > >> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > Dev@openlayers.org > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > <ATT00001..txt> Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Nokia _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
