[OpenLayers-Dev] 2.10 and 2.11-RC1 OpenLayers.Class behavior changes

[RICHARD Didier]

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM, RICHARD Didier <didier.richard at ign.fr>
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> 2/ in test 4, if you remove the initialize function from B and
>>>>>>> overload
>>>>>>> A,
>>>>>>> the B constructor is still the previous A's constructor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. To address this one I see no other solution than patching
>>>>>> OpenLayers.Class. See the patch attached to this email, and my
>>>>>> test_overload_5 test function. The Class.html tests continue to pass
>>>>>> with my patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this works in OL 2.11, not in OL 2.10 for me !-(
>>>>> I guess there is something similar to do in OL 2.10 ?
>>>>
>>>> Your initial mail was about OpenLayers trunk/2.11 introducing
>>>> regressions. Now the failing test that remains is OL 2.10-only, so OL
>>>> trunk/2.11 works better than OL 2.10 for you. Yippee! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> My initial mail was really about regression between 2.10 and 2.11 !-)
>>>
>>>> (Not sure it is worth "fixing" OL 2.10 for that.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, one of my test is versus the current release (2.10) and I am sure
>>> there are users that will migrate slower than us (I mean OL and IGNF)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I do think it is worth fixing it ... at least to prove there is no
>>> regression !-D
>>>
>>
>> I've got somethinf working, hence ugly :-)
>>
>>    OpenLayers.overload= function(P,F) {
>>        var pProtoInitialize= typeof(F.initialize)=="function"?
>>            P.prototype.initialize
>>        :   null;
>>        OpenLayers.Util.extend(P.prototype, F);
>>        if (pProtoInitialize!==null) {
>>            // override sub-class having same constructor:
>>            for (var pn in P) {
>>                if (typeof(P[pn])=='function' &&
>> P[pn].prototype.initialize===pProtoInitialize) {
>>                    var f= {};
>>                    eval('f=
>> {"initialize":'+F.initialize.toString()+'}');
>>                    P[pn]= OpenLayers.overload(P[pn],f);
>>                }
>>            }
>>        }
>>
>>        return P;
>>    };
>
> Hi Didier. Just to say that I personally wouldn't rely on an overload
> function that assumes subclasses use their parent constructors as
> their namespaces.
>

Hi Eric,

The key issue here is just to progagate the constructor's change to
sub-classes. One can imagine a third parameter (propagate - {Boolean}) to
the overload method (or an {Object} holding options like propagate), but
in that case, the behavior of 2.10/2.11 are not aligned when applying your
patch (on the other hand, without your patch no way to propagate the
changes to sub-classes constructors !) ...

> --
> Eric Lemoine
>
> Camptocamp France SAS
> Savoie Technolac, BP 352
> 73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex
>
> Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
> Mail : eric.lemoine at camptocamp.com
> http://www.camptocamp.com
>


-- 
RICHARD Didier - Chef du pôle technique du Géoportail
2/4, avenue Pasteur - 94165 Saint Mandé Cedex
Tél : +33 (0) 1 43 98 83 23