include route in args for willFocus/didFocus

[reergymerej]

This address #90, providing access to the route along with route.name so the user can query the route for whatever is needed.

[davidLeonardi]

If this isn't a breaking change this is a welcome contribution, which should be able to be merged pretty smoothly.

I personally depend on the name in some of my code, but i've long wished for having an actual UID for stuff.

@charpeni , opinions?

[reergymerej]

In lieu of #58, I tried out this change in my project that's currently depending on the name arg. It's all working fine and now opens up another option. It should be fully backward compatible.

[davidLeonardi]

While i like that it's backwards compatible, i think that emitting anything else but a single object is potentially misleading. I wasn't even aware that .emit supports a third argument that way.

The implementation for emitter is as follows:

/**
   * Emits an event of the given type with the given data. All handlers of that
   * particular type will be notified.
   *
   * @param {string} eventType - Name of the event to emit
   * @param {...*} Arbitrary arguments to be passed to each registered listener
   *
   * @example
   *   emitter.addListener('someEvent', function(message) {
   *     console.log(message);
   *   });
   *
   *   emitter.emit('someEvent', 'abc'); // logs 'abc'
   */
  emit(eventType: String) {
    var subscriptions = this._subscriber.getSubscriptionsForType(eventType);
    if (subscriptions) {
      var keys = Object.keys(subscriptions);
      for (var ii = 0; ii < keys.length; ii++) {
        var key = keys[ii];
        var subscription = subscriptions[key];

        // The subscription may have been removed during this event loop.
        if (subscription) {
          this._currentSubscription = subscription;
          subscription.listener.apply(
            subscription.context,
            Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1)
          );
        }
      }
      this._currentSubscription = null;
    }
  }

[reergymerej]

@SEthX For consistency, each emitted event should pass the route. That would allow developers to use it however they want, but it would obviously be a breaking change.

[davidLeonardi]

I second that @reergymerej .
So, should we create the first breaking release?
Better early than too late. I believe this is an important issue, as it allows LOTS of room for change in the future.
@charpeni ? @ericraio ?

[reergymerej]

I'll send another PR to provide route alone instead of as a 2nd arg.

[charpeni]

I'm agree with that. 👍

Thank you @reergymerej

[davidLeonardi]

So, merge?

[reergymerej]

semver FTW!

[charpeni]

Should we put that into a branch named v0.9.0 waiting for the other changes ?

[davidLeonardi]

We could, but we can also do it all in one go.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:59 PM Nicolas Charpentier notifications@github.com
wrote:

Should we put that into a branch named v0.9.0 waiting for the other
changes ?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#91 (comment)
.