[Dev] Action items from collections code/design review

[Ted Leung]

On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Alec Flett wrote:

> Ted Leung wrote:
>> One of the items is to move away from use of onValueChanged and  
>> go  back to using constructors for creating various collection  
>> kinds.   Unfortunately, this
>> means that we wouldn't be able to use update to change existing   
>> instances in the repository.
>
> As I recall, the issue around this was that if we marked an  
> attribute as "readonly" then there wasn't an obvious way to  
> actually initialize that attribute. If Andi can give us a way to  
> initialize the attribute, and tell Phillip about it so he can make  
> the schema stuff initialize correctly, then can't we make 'sources'  
> be readonly?

It's not only sources.  Some of the other collections have data that  
you might want to change like the kind, or the filter expression and  
so on.

>
> Also, I just today noticed InclusionExclusionCollection's 'setup'  
> method. I'm curious why some of this stuff can't be just set in the  
> constructor? I think this is kind of tied up in this onValueChanged/ 
> readonly sources issue, which is why I bring it up. I'm hoping  
> maybe pje will have some brilliant idea how to get rid of 'setup'  
> because it kind of breaks our model of just using 'update' to  
> initialize and create items.
>
>  If nobody else has seen this method, please scroll down to the  
> bottom of:
> http://svn.osafoundation.org/chandler/trunk/chandler/parcels/osaf/ 
> pim/collections.py
>
> Further, there was some discussion about how collections.py has  
> references to trash folders and such. I'd like to propose that we  
> go ahead with the class we've thrown around a bit, called  
> 'UserCollection' or whatever we're going to call it, make it derive  
> from InclusionExclusionCollection, and use THAT in the sidebar.  
> That would be a perfect place to put chandler-specific behavior  
> like the Trash.

I think that we agreed to hold of on doing this until we had  
annotations working and then we would move everything to where it  
belongs.   But if people want to move stuff now, that's fine by me.

>
> Alec
>
>> So we can't remove the onValueChanged  stuff, so it  doesn't
>> make sense to duplicate the code in the collection item   
>> constructors.  So I'm just going to leave the code the way that it  
>> is  now.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

----
Ted Leung                 Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A  CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20050919/c20a68a7/attachment.html