Re: Why aren't my bindings firing?
Re: Why aren't my bindings firing?
- Subject: Re: Why aren't my bindings firing?
- From: mmalc crawford <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:36:28 -0700
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Hamish Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Scott Anguish <email@hidden>
wrote:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Hamish Allan wrote:
Scott, for what it's worth, I really don't agree with you that Cocoa
Bindings and KVB are "the same thing" or that "there is no
distinction".
Ron just said the same thing.
If you honestly think that an informal protocol and its implementation
are the same thing, and that X and a proper subset of X are the same
thing, then I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion.
Otherwise, I am baffled.
Everything Ron said is right there in that paragraph.
How can you say that, when it doesn't even mention Cocoa Bindings?
I don't understand how anything I've said could draw your attention
away
from anything mmalc or Ron said. We've all been repeating the same
thing.
No. Specifically, neither of them have ever claimed that Cocoa
Bindings and KVB are the same thing.
This has gone too far -- you're monstrously misrepresenting what Scott
wrote.
On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Hamish Allan wrote:
But if you're wondering why this thread has gone on for longer than
it should
have done, it's partly because your repeated assertion of their
equivalence has drawn my attention away from what your colleagues have
been trying to point out to me: that KVB is merely the informal
protocol, whereas the various implementations (and what I would call
"types" of binding) are all provided by Cocoa Bindings(R)™.
Before Scott posted his first, this thread had 25 messages whose
content could perhaps be most charitably equated to a debate about the
number of angels that could fit on a pinhead. It culminated in this
bizarre assertion that there were *two types of binding*:
On Jul 2, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Ken Thomases wrote:
Regarding the whole asymmetry between the one-way bindings between
arbitrary KVC/KVO-compliant properties on the one hand and the two-
way bindings supported by views and NSController-derived objects on
the other hand, I think I figured something out.
The documentation makes, in a few places, a distinction between the
terms "key-value bindings" (KVB) and "Cocoa bindings". In fact,
Cocoa bindings are described as being built on KVC, KVO, _and KVB_:
[...]
So, it seems like my confusion was in thinking there was only one
kind of binding supported by Cocoa, when there are two which are
confusingly-similarly-named. Adding to the confusion is that the
documentation tends to refer to "binding(s)" with neither prefix,
and which it means is not always clear from the context.
KVB is a generic capability that you get with the
bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options: method for most classes. It is
one-way updating of a KVC-compliant property on the receiver from a
KVC/KVO-compliant property at the key-path from the named object.
In addition, some framework classes supply additional functionality
on top of that -- Cocoa bindings. The functioning of this kind of
binding is radically different, even though it still uses
bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options: as its interface. As discussed,
the name of a Cocoa binding need not be a property of the receiver.
(It's often referred to as an "attribute".) Also, it's two-way.
and it was to this that Scott replied:
Key value Binding and Cocoa Bindings are the same thing.
Key-Value Binding is implemented at the foundation level.[sic --
Scott admitted the error later, but it's not relevant to the
issue.] Cocoa Bindings is the name used for the additional features
(controllers, views that support bindings, etc..) which is
implemented at the AppKit level.
So there is no distinction.
Note in particular the middle sentences: These make precisely the same
point that Ron and I have made, and that you're asserting Scott did not.
Scott later repeated the same point:
On Jul 2, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Scott Anguish wrote:
It may have started from that, but there is no distinction. they are
the same technology. KVB is the protocol, Cocoa Bindings is the
term used to describe the complete set of features, including the
controller and view objects.
Scott further made the context -- Ken's original flawed analysis --
clear:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Scott Anguish wrote:
It's now been explained that we don't have two different types of
bindings by the people who wrote that doc, and one of the engineers
that works on the implementation.
So, apropos of:
If you honestly think that an informal protocol and its implementation
are the same thing, and that X and a proper subset of X are the same
thing, then I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion.
[...]
No. Specifically, neither of them have ever claimed that Cocoa
Bindings and KVB are the same thing.
Scott has never made either claim.
This thread has now run way past any conceivable utility it may have
had; if you have any further comments, and in particular any further
ad hominems against Scott, *please take them off-list*.
mmalc
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden