On May 19, 2006, at 3:48 AM, P T Withington wrote: > On 2006-05-19, at 00:40 EDT, Jim Grandy wrote: > >> One thing to be careful of is that making LzNode derive from >> LzDataElement would impose more restrictions on our ability to >> optimize LzDataElement by decorating the native XML data element >> types. > > Seems like there are two conflicting uses here: 1) making the node > hierarchy navigable and 2) binding the node hierarchy to data. > Exactly. But we don't need to over-use the class hierarchy for this. Keep in mind that we can have two (or more) separate classes/traits implementing the same "interface" in different ways. One for XML DOM trees, another for our node trees, for example. This is what I was getting at below with reference to Oliver's LzNode DOM apis. >> Another way to get (almost) the same effect would be to adopt >> Oliver's DOM APIs for LzNode -- the ones in incubator/domapi.js. >> Not sure how this resonates with DHTML, though... > > You'd have to expand on this. > >> One way to resolve the cheasyMultipleInheritance problem would be >> to create a trait that implements the parts of LzNode that >> LzDataset wants, and have both LzNode and LzDataset derive from >> that trait. > > Henry and I are looking at making LzDataNode and LzDataElement be > traits and mixing them in, rather than trying to abstract a trait > from LzNode. Do you think this is the wrong way to go? > No, I think that's a good direction. I wouldn't literally make them traits -- I'd refactor traits out of them, and have them derive from the new traits. > One issue is that LzDataElement needs to be both a trait and a > class (doesn't it?), so we are probably looking at at least > abstracting out functionality from LzDataElement. But that seemed > like a smaller task than trying to abstract LzNode just now. > Agreed. >> On May 18, 2006, at 12:50 PM, P T Withington wrote: >> >>> This has been proposed several times. I think one fear is that >>> it adds yet more weight to LzNode. But both Jim and Adam have >>> discussed it in the past. Perhaps now is the time to bite the >>> bullet. Or, perhaps we make LzDataElement a trait? >>> >>> On 2006-05-18, at 14:03 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: >>> >>>> Or rather, maybe LzNode should inherit from LzDataElement? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/18/06, Henry Minsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What would be wrong with just having LzDataset inherit from >>>>> LzDataElement? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Henry Minsky >>>>> Software Architect >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henry Minsky >>>> Software Architect >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Laszlo-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
