I think I found the solutions. As always, it brings up a new question.
The problem was I was trying to follow the pattern of prior code and I decided
to dump that and go with the same kind of code that populated the first grid.
If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to copy some code here to
Hi,
I have created a Sub Class of Cairngorm Event and added a variable
for Storing the IReponder..
Now When the execute() is invoked on the Command we get the Delegate
and set the Responder of Delegate to the instance of Command . So when
the delegate completes the method it automatically
If you're using Cairngorm, why not use the UM extension to do it?
-Josh
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:12 AM, sk_acura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have created a Sub Class of Cairngorm Event and added a variable
for Storing the IReponder..
Now When the execute() is invoked on the Command
Hi,
Josh thanks for your reply...
I have gone through the code for UM Extensions..
So i guess all i need to do is don't override the result() in my
CustomeCommand Class so that the default result() gets called and will
automatically invoke the result() on my view..
Thanks
Mars
--- In
Hey Barry,
My comments, concerning Cairngorm from the beginning, is that there
needed to be a more robust method of informing the view that a gesture
head succeded or failed. Probably my ignorance, and I'm totally open to
suggestion, but the UM extensions seeemed to solve the initial
Cairngorm;
First you have to understand the concept of Cairngorm and then UM
extensions. Especially in light of what you're trying to achieve. Recoding
your project in Cairngorm manner might be an issue depending on how far are
you with it and how many developers are on it. It is very straightforward
Tim,
I don't use UM extensions and I'm totally able to notify my views just
with Cairngorm.
What I use usually is a model ( no matter what it is ) that I inject to
my event , passes to the command and then on result/fault I update the
same model. Since the model passes by reference, my view,
Josh,
(also coming from a non-Cairngorm guy)
I find it helpful to distinguish between presentation models and data
models, and that's a way that status flags etc. need not be regarded as
pollution. Just put them in a separate object. There's no rule that says
views can only have a reference to
I hear you João,
Binding to the model works the majority of the time. However, it can
also add a significant amount of model variables, that are used stricly
for state, that can be eliminated with view call-backs. It's clearly an
issue of preference, but I personally like what the guys at UM
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Binding to the model works the majority of the time. However, it can
also add a significant amount of model variables, that are used stricly
for state, that can be eliminated with view call-backs. It's clearly an
issue of
Thanks for your responses.
I agree with the idea that binding should work, I have set up 2
datagrids with the same data provider, the standard data grid works
fine when the model locator is updated, however, the advanced one
does not. Is it because I am using a grouping tag with the advanced
Disclaimer: I don't use Cairngorm or UM, so I might be wrong! But I do take
a keen interest in all that is Flex :)
Basically, in Cairngorm, from your View, you dispatch an event telling your
command to do some stuff, and then you wait for the model to change before
the view knows to take some
Hey Don,
This Flex Show episode
http://www.theflexshow.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/4/9/The-Flex-Show--Episo\
de-41-Universal-Mind-Cairngorm-Extensions-w-Thomas-Burleson is very
informative. Thomas Burleson, from UI, did a great job explaining the
Cairngorm UM extensions. They certainly deserve
Ha, UM that is.
-TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Don,
This Flex Show episode
http://www.theflexshow.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/4/9/The-Flex-Show--
Episo\
de-41-Universal-Mind-Cairngorm-Extensions-w-Thomas-Burleson is
very
informative. Thomas
They certainly deserve consideration to be
rolled into Cairngorm proper.
hmmm, on listening to that podcast a while ago, I got the distinct
impression that there was a - not a disagreement as such - but
certainly a difference in viewpoint, especially for the reasons that
UM went to the
I'm assuming Binding would be the easiest solution.
If your binding directly from your model to the advancedDataGrid
binding should take care of the updating for you..
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, donvoltz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been building on my cairngorm experience and have
I agree your solution should be in binding, but definitely check out UM
anyway, if only for the fail/success callbacks on events. I've ripped off
that idea for some in-house stuff (I was in the middle of something less
elegant to achieve the same result when I heard about it), and it's
incredibly
Thanks,
This clarifies issue quite nicely for me.
Tero
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of mssairam
Sent: 22 May 2007 14:59
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm event question.
Hi,
Really you just
Hi,
Really you just need to have a LoginEvent, I think.
Here is a sequence of the scenario --
1) User enters username and password and clicks submit
2) A Cairngorm event named LoginEvent is broadcast probably with
data elements containing username and password as entered by user
3) The
19 matches
Mail list logo
