Re: api support

From: Greg (ghuland..ramedphotographics.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 20:55:08 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Schrag: "Re: api support"

    One thing I have noticed with this is that you are only using the
    gettter/setter's to see if a binding is correct. It would be good if
    you also used the classes instance variables. Since coming from Xcode
    and WOBuilder, the binding created was never to getUser, but rather
    user since KVC would handle getting the accessor for user.

    Greg

    On 12/09/2005, at 9:57 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:

    > I thought I had posted already, but I can't find the post -- too
    > much programming over the weekend I think :)
    >
    > Several people have emailed me asking for this -- support for WOD
    > binding-name completion based on the API file is in (for project,
    > framework, and core components) ... Completely standing on Ulrich's
    > shoulders with his API parser :) . There are also a bunch of new
    > error checks in the WOD file: check for element names defined in
    > HTML but no in WOD, check for element names defined in WOD but not
    > in HTML, check for duplicate definition of element names in WOD,
    > check for duplicate definition of binding names, check for
    > existence of type names + that it is instanceof WOElement, and the
    > usual check for proper syntax.
    >
    > I don't do API binding validation yet. I can't recall if I asked
    > this before, but if you have an API file that defines bindings, can
    > you ONLY bind to something defined in the API file or is it the
    > usual get/set methods PLUS the bindings defined in the API file?
    >
    > And I'm still working the kinks out of the error checking --
    > occasionally I manage to get it to freak out a little (I think
    > there a certain case where the parser gets greedy and one of the
    > rules gobbles up an extra character at the end, which throws
    > everything off), but I haven't nailed down the actual repeatable
    > scenario that causes it. If you happen to see it and can figure
    > out what causes a repeatable case, let me know.
    >
    > WOD error checking still is not hooked up to a builder, so you only
    > see errors for files that you have opened. Incidentally, would
    > people LIKE it to be a builder? The downside is obviously that the
    > time to do a build increases. Going forward, any new file you make
    > will have the incremental error checking, so this is really only an
    > issue for finding errors in existing projects.
    >
    > ms
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 19:40:35 EDT