Maciek Why not just keep the Remote Object details in a database and then use the technique shown in:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/message/126803 to create a dynamic remote object? --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Maciek Sakrejda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's what I was hoping you could tell me ;) > > I suppose I will have to do my own dirty work. Thanks for your help. > > -Maciek > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:45:22 -0700 > > RO and services-config is not my area of expertise, but Iâm pretty sure > the compiler generates code that just sets up channels and endpoints, > which I think you can set on a RemoteObject dynamically. Is there more > to it than making an HTTP request for an XML file and using that to > instantiate the appropriate channels and what not? > > > > From:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Maciek Sakrejda > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:52 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml > > > > > Thanks, Alex. Supposing we really do want modules with new endpoints and > not sub-applications, is it possible to emulate services-config.xml > functionality by programmatically requesting a services-config.xml-like > per-module config file and subclassing RemoteObject to understand the > extra channels and endpoints defined there? Any pointers if that's a > viable solution? > > -Maciek > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:42:47 -0700 > > Modules imply a certain level of sharing of class definitions and what > not and probably donât allow you to not share what AMF needs. You might > want to use a Marshall Plan configuration instead. > > From:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Maciek Sakrejda > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:43 AM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml > > Anyone? I can't be the first one to hit this limitation, can I? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maciek Sakrejda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > To: flexcoders <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:57:05 -0700 > > I asked this on Saturday, but it was as a clarification to another > question and got no response, so I thought I'd ask again. > > What's the best way to deal with modules that define their own set of > AMF endpoints (or even channels)? I need a single services-config.xml > file for the entire war file (I'm deploying as a Java war), right? Is > there an easy way to set up AMF so that others can add modules to the > war without having to recompile the main application against a new > services-config.xml? Is there any way to do that? Modules seem really > cool, but it would be nice if they were self-contained with respect to > this... > -- > Maciek Sakrejda > Truviso, Inc. > http://www.truviso.com >
