At 06:56 PM 1/18/2005 -0600, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >Peter Sorotokin wrote: > >>>>>2) That the implementation is keeping the event listeners for the two >>>>>types in >>>>> separate lists (is this desirable? Should registering a listener >>>>> for both >>>>> types involved make it get the event twice?). >>>> >>>>You can do it per-listener rather than on per-list basis; but I'd keep >>>>two separate lists. >>> >>> >>>In other words, a listener registered for both event names would indeed >>>get the event twice? >>No, in this case each event listener entry in the list would have to >>store an event type for which it was registered (also would be needed for >>unregistering). > >I'm sorry, but I think you lost me. Say I have an event listener named >"listener" and an event target named "target". We have our two event >types "type1" and "type2". I execute the following code: > > target.addEventListener("type1", listener, false); > target.addEventListener("type2", listener, false); > >when the event fires, how many times will my listener's handleEvent method >be called? Twice, IMHO. They are still different events - even if they are "equivalent". I think we'd get in trouble with the DOM otherwise. > Please note the provisions on addEventListener for registering > identical listeners. > >Further, what is the behavior of: > > target.addEventListener("type1", listener, false); > target.removeEventListener("type2", listener, false); Again, IMHO, you still have listener for type1. >? > >The answers to these questions should be clearly documented in the >specification of what it means for the two event names to be "equivalent". Agreed. Peter >-BorisReceived on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 06:43:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC