Hi Alex,
now I understand the problem. I was not aware of @expose and what you
comment here. Very important information. Tomorrow I'll go back to the
sample and see if I can change the sample to get working with that style
and remove this fix since I think it's better to force people to make
things in the good way.
2013/5/2 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I saw the changes.
>
> I think it is a good fix, but you might want to add a comment that the
> non-getter approach is likely to fail for non-public variables when
> minified.
>
> Right now, binding in FlexJS only works for public properties and your fix
> makes it work for public variables. Note that in some cases, the backing
> variable for a public get/set is the same name because in JS the pattern
> looks like:
>
> /** @private */
> var foo;
>
> /** @expose */
> function get_foo()
> {
> return this.foo;
> }
>
> The question is, what did the AS look like? If it looked like
>
> private var _foo;
> public function get foo()
> {
> return this._foo;
> }
>
> Then the JS code for your failure case should be changed to look like the
> recommended pattern and then you don't need the [this.sourceID] code path
> as
> there will be a get_ function.
>
> If the AS looked like:
>
> public var foo;
>
> Then the JS should be
>
> /** @expose */
> Someclass.prototype.foo;
>
> If they forget to use @expose then it will likely fail when minified.
>
> One more minor thing: Do you happen to know if try/catch is more efficient
> than doing a property lookup to see if it is undefined before making a
> call?
>
> Anyway, thanks for contributing. We can use all the help we can get.
>
>
> On 5/2/13 2:35 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I commit a solution that fixes the problem, but I don't know if is
> > compliant with the motivation you make this change (minified version).
> >
> > I think binding should work even if we don't have a getter/setter setup,
> > but I'm to new to this new framework that maybe this is not what you have
> > in mind.
> >
> > So it's up to you to change if you see some problem with this fix.
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/2 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/1/13 3:40 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Alex
> >>>
> >>> this latest change in SimpleBinding:
> >>>
> >>> - this.source = this.document[this.sourceID];
> >>> + this.source = this.document['get_' + this.sourceID]();
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Makes the createjs sample to not generate controls far beyond a
> >>> SimpleBinding.
> >>>
> >>> I need to change the sample code or it's a bug?
> >> Well, using getters is correct. Are you binding to something that
> isn't a
> >> getter in AS? Maybe the JS version of that property should have been a
> >> get/set pair.
> >>
> >> But if you want, you can also try to make SimpleBinding tolerant and
> find
> >> things that aren't getters.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alex Harui
> >> Flex SDK Team
> >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es
