YES!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH! Something like that was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you so much.
Now, my only problem is making my ItemRenderer show the "name" property of the selected realm rather than the "id" of the realm. I think I know a way to do this. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Charlie Hubbard <[email protected] > wrote: > You can access the instance members of your surrounding document using a > special property *outerDocument* from within the mx:Component tag when > using inline renderers. > > <mx:Component> > <mx:ComboBox dataModel="{outerDocument.choices}"/> > </mx:Component> > > outerDocument allows you to access any special data or functions you've > defined outside the mx:Component. It works nicely when you need to inject > data/behavior that is not associated with the data field from the model. > Remember itemRenders/editors are unique per row so there's no way to inject > data into them since you're not in control of constructing them. This is > the only way I've found around this little snafu. > > If you don't use inline components you can always wrap your custom > component inside an inline and pass data form the outerDocument in as > properties to your custom component thus keeping the code nice and straight > forward. No tricky code. > > Charlie > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Tyler Kocheran <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Does anyone know how to do this? I'm really confused on this one, and I >> honestly need some help. I resorted to using a static variable to get the >> data to where it needs to be, but I just can't make it work. Here's some >> more info. >> >> I'm creating an editable DataGrid for the purpose of associating Interest >> objects with a User object. The Interest object has a realm property which >> references the id of a Realm object which I've created. I need to basically >> create these Interest objects on what the user has input in each DataGrid >> row. As one of my editors, I need a ComboBox which will reference the Realm >> objects and use each Realm's "name" property for a label, and each Realm's >> "id" property for a data field, because I ultimately need to pull that info >> into Interest objects which use a Realm's "id" property as their own "realm" >> properties. >> >> Basically, I just need to supply a list of Realm objects to my itemeditor >> ComboBox. This is seeming pretty impossible to me at the moment, >> unfortunately. >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Tyler Kocheran <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I need to pass in data to one of my item editors for a data grid column. >>> I have an array of data objects that are loaded at runtime and I need to >>> pass that collection to item editors so they can use it as a data provider. >>> Here's an example of what I need to do. I'm loading a bunch of "TKImage" >>> objects which define a few properties like "name" and "id". I need to use >>> the "id" property as each individual item's data field, and apply the name >>> as each individual item's label field. I know it's possible to do something >>> like this statically at compile time with a nested <mx:dataProvider> tag and >>> I know it's also possible to use a static property to pass the data along, >>> but I'm trying to avoid those two things because my application has the need >>> to be dynamic, and I don't like global variables too much ;) >>> >>> What I need is for something like this to function: >>> <mx:DataGrid editable="true"> >>> <mx:columns> >>> <mx:DataGridColumn> >>> <mx:Component> >>> <mx:ComboBox dataProvider="{myDataProvider}"/> >>> </mx:Component> >>> </mx:DataGridColumn> >>> </mx:columns> >>> </mx:DataGrid> >>> >>> -- >>> And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of >>> sleep; >>> for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of >> sleep; >> for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. >> >> > > -- And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
