Amy is right,
the code was:
override public function set data(value:Object):void
{
super.data = value;
}
maybe its preferable to have :
override public function set data(value:Object):void
{
if (value != null)
{
super.data = value;
}
}
What i usually do is check for null and then if not do any custom logic:
override public function set data(value:Object):void
{
if (value != null)
{
super.data = value;
//pseudo
if (value is supposed to be shown in red)
{
make the background red
}
else
{
//reset component to solve renderer re-use issues
reset color to Grey
}
}
}
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Amy <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, Alex
> Harui <aha...@...> wrote:
> >
> > If your override is exactly as you posted:
> > override public function set data(value:Object):void { }
> >
> > then the override never passed the value to the base class
> implementation so the value wasn't stored and the debugger will read
> from the "get data()" function and show you a null.
> >
> > In the base class the setter does this:
> >
> > _data = value;
> >
> > And the getter does this:
> >
> > return _data;
> >
> > where _data is defined as:
> >
> > private var _data:Object;
>
> I'm pretty sure the function he posted included
> super.data=value;
>
> Wouldn't that pass the value to the base class implementation?
>
> Just making sure I'm not confused and he doesn't get unnecessarily
> confused on this.
>
> Thanks;
>
> Amy
>
>
>
--
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
[email protected],
