For some reason the patch system keeps rejecting the patch 20080522-ptw-l/apply.sh patching file WEB-INF/lps/schema/lfc.lzx Hunk #1 FAILED at 966. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file WEB-INF/lps/schema/lfc.lzx.rej badtzmaru:trunk5 hqm$
maybe you can just send me the lfc.lzx file as plain text,.. On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gah! Updated the changeset once more with feeling. Try one last time? > (We _really_ need to take the human, or at least me, out of the loop in > generating this schema.) > > > On 2008-05-22, at 13:39 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: > > I didn't see "onapplied" declared as an <event> in the schema file.. >> >> >> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:32 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> By convention, if you have an attribute `foo`, you can always register >>> for >>> `onfoo` -- the system takes care of this by magic for plain attributes. >>> But, if you write a setter for `foo`, the system will not automatically >>> create the corresponding event -- you have to do that (and send it from >>> your >>> setter) yourself. >>> >>> I forgot this when I first amended the <state> API to use `applied` >>> instead >>> of `apply` as the state of the state. Recently I fixed that, by >>> declaring >>> the `onapplied` event in state and making sure to send `onapplied` any >>> time >>> the value of `applied` changes (whether from setting the attribute, or >>> from >>> calling the apply or remove methods, which update the attribute). >>> <state>'s >>> API is still too clever by 1/2, but I think it is better than before >>> (when >>> it was too clever by at least one full measure). >>> >>> [P.S., we've discussed before the wisdom of requiring the custom setter >>> to >>> send the event. The claim is there might be _one_ case, where you want >>> finer control over when the event is sent, so we can't have events >>> automatically sent for custom setters. I think this might be that one >>> hypothetical case.] >>> >>> >>> On 2008-05-22, at 13:20 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: >>> >>> So we need an "onapplied" event? >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry. Guess I hadn't saved the buffer. Can you try again? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2008-05-22, at 12:49 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When I applied this patch, it didn't change anything in lfc.lzx >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM, P T Withington < >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Change 20080522-ptw-l by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2008-05-22 >>>>>> 12:04:07 >>>>>> >>>>>> EDT >>>>>>> in /Users/ptw/OpenLaszlo/ringding-2 >>>>>>> for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Summary: Update schema to reflect current <state> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bugs Fixed: >>>>>>> Trac #557: 'LZX: ViewSchema attrs and lfc.lzx doesn't correspond to >>>>>>> LZS/JS >>>>>>> classes' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Technical Reviewer: hminsky (pending) >>>>>>> QA Reviewer: dda (pending) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tests: >>>>>>> Inspection >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Files: >>>>>>> M WEB-INF/lps/schema/lfc.lzx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changeset: >>>>>>> http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20080522-ptw-l.tar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Henry Minsky >>>>>> Software Architect >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henry Minsky >>>> Software Architect >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
