[Web] Migrate to get and set API [1/2]
#3255
Conversation
m-bert
changed the title
get and set APIget and set API [0/?]
m-bert
changed the title
get and set API [0/?]get and set API [1/2]
m-bert
requested review from
latekvo and
j-piasecki
and removed request for
latekvo
| public get state() { | ||
| return this._state; | ||
| } | ||
| public set state(state: State) { | ||
| this._state = state; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Previously the currentState was protected, and was only used internally.
Now the state is exposed as its getters are public.
Same for tracker, hasCustomActivationCriteria, and multiple other internal variables which were private/protected, and not exposed by any public getters or setters before these changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, yes and no. Even though those modifiers are public, they are not available to end user. At least doing something like:
const pan = Gesture.Pan()
pan.state = State.ACTIVEwon't work as the user operates on Gesture type.
I've also thought about removing setters/getters that are not used, but I'm not sure about that.
Either way, we can change access modifiers to match previous state of this implementation, but I don't think it makes much sense to create private getters and setters. CC @j-piasecki
| public getTrackedPointersID(): number[] { | ||
| return this.pointerTracker.getTrackedPointersID(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this intentional? I get that getTrackedPointersID is just forwarding a function with the same name, but I'm not sure why we can't make it a getter called trackedPointersID
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also this is a bit of a nuance, and only relevant if you decide to change this function into a get-getter,
but trackedPointersID sounds like there's a single ID for multiple pointers. Since we're already changing the name of the function, is it ok if we rename it to trackedPointerIDs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're already changing the name of the function, is it ok if we rename it to trackedPointerIDs?
Sure, we can
I'm not sure why we can't make it a getter called trackedPointersID
Here we have to decide whether we want to have getters to values that are calculated, not stored in a private fields. It is already done ScaleGestureDetector, but I'm still not sure if we want that.
On the other hand, i get that it doesn't look good that we have ES6 and Java-style getters 😞
What's your stance on that, @j-piasecki?
|
After further discussions I'm closing this PR in favor of #3263 |
Caution
Suppressed by #3263
Description
In this PR I've migrated our handlers into
get/setfunctions instead of traditional getters and setters convention (like inJava).Note
This PR changes only handlers and detectors,
toolsdirectory is not a part of this PR as it would get too big.Test plan
Run web example