PDA

View Full Version : [FIXED] Ext.util.Bindable => Ext.util.StoreHolder



rferri
22 May 2014, 9:25 AM
In Ext JS 4, Ext.util.Bindable (http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/4.2.2/#!/api/Ext.util.Bindable) was a public mixin. With 5 Beta, the mixin appears to have been replaced by the private mixin Ext.util.StoreHolder (http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/5.0.0/apidocs/#!/api/Ext.util.StoreHolder).

I couldn't find any reference to this change in the upgrade guide (http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/5.0.0/whats_new/5.0/extjs_upgrade_guide.html). Has Ext.util.StoreHolder been marked private by mistake, or was Ext.util.Bindable always meant to be a private framework mixin?

mitchellsimoens
27 May 2014, 6:53 AM
I'm going to open a bug for this. StoreHolder should remain public and the name change should be noted in the upgrade guide.

rferri
27 May 2014, 6:54 AM
Thanks!

dongryphon
3 Jun 2014, 9:17 PM
This was added to the upgrade guide and will be in the next rollout. Sorry for the confusion. It is still marked private as it is more of an internal utility for the handful of framework classes that need to associate with stores.

LesJ
4 Jun 2014, 10:28 AM
This was added to the upgrade guide and will be in the next rollout. Sorry for the confusion. It is still marked private as it is more of an internal utility for the handful of framework classes that need to associate with stores.

What if I'd like to create custom components and use this helpful mixin? I think it should be public so people can use it with confidence.

rferri
5 Jun 2014, 5:27 AM
This was added to the upgrade guide and will be in the next rollout. Sorry for the confusion. It is still marked private as it is more of an internal utility for the handful of framework classes that need to associate with stores.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. I'd urge the team to reconsider their position; the mixin was just as useful for non-framework classes.