Something I find very counter-intuitive about Ember is you can overwrite a computed property setter functions ( http://emberjs.com/#toc_computed-properties-setters ) with the ar
The main reason why we've pushed back on this change is that it makes it impossible to override properties that are defined on base classes as computed properties. For example, in Ember.View
, the template
property is a computed property:
template: Ember.computed(function(key, value) {
if (value !== undefined) { return value; }
var templateName = get(this, 'templateName'),
template = this.templateForName(templateName, 'template');
return template || get(this, 'defaultTemplate');
}).property('templateName').cacheable(),
When creating a subclass of Ember.View
, you may want to override this definition with an explicit template function:
Ember.View.create({ template: Ember.Handlebars.compile('...') });
If the computed property doesn't handle the setter case, this attempt to override the computed property would be a silent failure.
If we made this change, it also introduces other questions about whether observers should trigger for properties passed into the create
method. Both are possible to implement, and there are strong arguments for both approaches.
In the run-up to 1.0, it seems reasonable to consider an approach that would:
create
to use setProperties
semanticsoverride
or createWithOverride
) that would retain the existing semantics, in case you explicitly wanted to override existing computed propertiescreate
(or decide not to)create
API with computed properties that do not implement setters.I would need to discuss it more, and consider the implications to existing apps, but it is definitely something worth considering, as it is definitely a pretty big gotcha for new developers. The fact that we needed to change the behavior for ember-data
is a pretty good clue that something isn't quite right.