This isn't technically a module question.  I believe that you will find
the same behavior if you were to "new" a frameworks class and then try
to access it.  Did you call "addChild()" on the product of the factory?
 
I'd get that working first in a simple hard-linked case.
 
Note that you may well run into issues if you try to make a
frameworks-based module that doesn't extend mx:Module.  There is some
codegen magic that happens in that case that doesn't happen if you
extend the more stripped-down ModuleBase.
 
-rg


________________________________

        From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tvikatos
        Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:51 AM
        To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Problem with module classes
instantiation through ModuleManager
        
        

        Anyone expert in modules, has a clue?
        Is ModuleManager and the factory you get when loading a module, 
        supposed to work with AS-only modules?
        We are generally lacking documentation and examples with the 
        ModuleManager...
        
        --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "tvikatos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
        >
        > I have a module that combines mxml and as3. The problem I
describe
        > below happens in either case:
        > * main module file in AS extending ModuleBase
        > * main module file in MXML extending mx:Module
        > 
        > When I load the module using ModuleLoader and its 'child'
property,
        > all is good.
        > When I use ModuleManager and I instantiate a module object
through
        > IModuleInfo.factory.create(), the objects defined as MXML tags

        within
        > my module are not instantiated (properties remain null).
        > Is there something I can do to properly instantiate the module
        > (something that apparently ModuleLoader does behind the
scene)?
        > 
        > Or should I just not use any MXML with modules?
        >
        
        

         

Reply via email to