AFAIK, the reason getActiveSiteHolder prefers the loading holder is so
that operations will get that while a gadget is still loading.
After render it goes away and the result should always be the
currentGadgetHolder_
The dispose check to get it again is just for safety so that if that edge
case happens in a gadget we know we've cleaned up both holders in the
site.
Are you running into an issue in this code? I curious what's prompting
the questions :)
I think we might be able to move this bit:
if (this.loadingGadgetEl_ && this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild) {
this.loadingGadgetEl_.removeChild(this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild);
}
inside the holder's dispose method to clean things up a bit. I would need
to see what that does to the other non-loading holder.
From: Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Date: 03/23/2012 03:12 AM
Subject: Re: Question about gagdet_site.js GadgetSite.close impl
for close() function
I see.
So the getActiveSiteHolder code currently looks like this:
/**
* @inheritDoc
*/
osapi.container.GadgetSite.prototype.getActiveSiteHolder = function() {
return this.loadingGadgetHolder_ || this.currentGadgetHolder_;
};
This code is weird because it should be the other way:
return this.currentGadgetHolder_ || this.loadingGadgetHolder_;
because after GadgetSite.onRender() is called and replacing
currentGadgetHolder_ with loadingGadgetHolder_ which makes it active.
So the close() function in gadget_site.js file could look like:
/**
* @inheritDoc
*/
osapi.container.GadgetSite.prototype.close = function() {
osapi.container.Site.prototype.close.call(this); // super.close();
if (this.loadingGadgetEl_ && this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild) {
this.loadingGadgetEl_.removeChild(this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild);
}
// dispose of our other holder if any
if(loadingGadgetHolder_) {
loadingGadgetHolder_.dispose();
}
};
The odds of GadgetSite.onRender() has not finished executing when
someone call GadgetSite.close() I think is pretty rare. So in most
typical scenarios there will be only one instance of gadget holder
active.
Thoughts?
- Henry
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Dan Dumont <ddum...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Yes it's the same as an if check. The reason the code is duplicated is
because gadget sites have 2 holders.
> The second time it's called it should return the other one.
>
> -----Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: -----
>
> =================
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org@IBMUS@LOTUS
> From: Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
> Date: 03/22/2012 06:52PM
> Cc: IBMUS@LOTUS
> Subject: Question about gagdet_site.js GadgetSite.close impl for
close() function
> =======================
> In the gadget_site.js file there is this function:
>
> /**
> * @inheritDoc
> */
> osapi.container.GadgetSite.prototype.close = function() {
> osapi.container.Site.prototype.close.call(this); // super.close();
> if (this.loadingGadgetEl_ && this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild) {
> this.loadingGadgetEl_.removeChild(this.loadingGadgetEl_.firstChild);
> }
>
> // dispose of our other holder.
> var holder = this.getActiveSiteHolder();
> holder && holder.dispose();
> };
>
>
> The parent site.js has this:
>
>
> /**
> * Closes this site.
> */
> osapi.container.Site.prototype.close = function() {
> if (this.el_ && this.el_.firstChild) {
> this.el_.removeChild(this.el_.firstChild);
> }
>
> var holder = this.getActiveSiteHolder();
> holder && holder.dispose();
> };
>
>
> If am not sure what " holder && holder.dispose();" should do. I think
> its trying to do:
>
> if(holder) {
> holder.dispose();
> }
>
> And the GadgetSite should not repeat the code I suppose.
>
> - Henry
>
>
