[Seaside] Setting instance variables

Avi Bryant avi@beta4.com
Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:21:37 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Jim Benson wrote:

> Avi,
> Do you think I should just step up to 9.4 then? After you've experimented
> with axing the bindings, what is your opinion of the new approach?

It's nice to have clear underlying semantics, that rely on more concrete
concepts like events and blocks rather than the magic of the bindings
(well, ok, the bindings were pretty concrete to me but I don't think
they've ever been for anyone else).  In general, the 0.94 codebase is a
fair bit cleaner because of that.

However, after a while writing code with the event system, I found myself
missing the high level abstraction of the bindings.  So I added them back,
in a limited way - subcomponents still have bind:toPath: and
set:toPath:, implemented on top of the events system, but with the same
semantics as always.

Basic template elements almost never need their defaults overridden
anyway, so I don't miss bindings there.  And the #inputConversion: and
#outputConversion: methods, for example, seem a better solution to me than
the old #bind:toNumber:.

All in all, I *think* the move was the right one, particularly since by
adding back in #bind:toPath: we get a bit of both worlds.  But I don't
think I'll be comfortable releasing it until I've seen how it sits with a
few others.  So, yes, by all means move to 0.94 - I think you'll prefer
it, and I want guinea pigs anyway ;-).  But be aware that it's still in