> > Do you have any preference for which approach we use? I tend to > prefer any solution that has less lines of code, but there's clearly > an effort in initCssClassNames() to ensure a 1:1 mapping of the > defaults and the user-specified overrides. >
I agree that less lines of code are always better. The actual function exists in Fluid.js but calling it from component code is also one line: fluid.utils.initCssClassNames(defaults, overrides); I agree that this is a badly named function - how about 'fluid.utils.override'. So, for me the question comes down to how safe we want to be. We know what we are willing to have overridden so using the more specific function seems right to me. Although I used the word 'safe' I can't actually come up with a reason why mixing in arbitrary properties that would never be called or activated is 'unsafe'. So I guess I'm willing to go with what ever the consensus is but I'm leaning toward the fluid function. Michelle ------------------------------------------------------ Michelle D'Souza Software Developer, Fluid Project Adaptive Technology Resource Centre University of Toronto _______________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list [email protected] http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
