Hi Jim, Try tagging the properties that you don't want managed in your [Managed] AS class as [Transient]. This should prevent changes to them from being logged/committed.
Best, Seth ________________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Laing Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:31 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] FDS, VOs, and ignoring client-side properties Again, thanks for the suggestions. I've tried manually implementing the IManaged interface and using a custom event name (per your suggestions), and I can't seem to get bindings to work on my unmanaged property. I've posted a simple test app at: http://www.phlod.com/TestBinding/TestBinding.html and the source code is available at: http://www.phlod.com/TestBinding/srcview/ According to what you're saying, this should work right? Unfortunately as you see, bindings don't work for the "checked" property. Am I doing something wrong? As I mentioned before, if I manually implement the "propertyChange" event or allow Flex to generate it, then the code above works as expected. However, in our app, the DataStore then recognizes a change in the Managed ProjectTypeVO object ... which is exactly what we *don't* want. Also, our corporation has a support contract with Adobe for Flex. Is this an issue we should take up there? Or will they just redirect us back to you? Let me know, and thanks for all your help! Jim 2006/8/22, Jeff Vroom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I think the problem is that currently when you specify [Managed] on a class, we will do code-generation for all properties of the class, even those properties which explicitly specify the [Bindable(event="someEvent")] metadata tag on them. (If your class specifies [Bindable], we do skip code-gen for the property if it has a per-property metadata tag though). There is a bug opened on this and I think we'll fix it soon. In the meantime, probably the only option is to take out the [Managed] tag which would require you to add the managed code yourself to that class. For the properties you want to FDS to ignore, just do not fire the PropertyChangedEvent. Jeff ________________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Chotin Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:54 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [flexcoders] FDS, VOs, and ignoring client-side properties Hmm, if you can send us a smaller example we can look but I believe that the approach that I mentioned should work. If you have bindings that fire because of events that aren't "propertyChanged" the managed stuff shouldn't notice. Matt ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Laing Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:15 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] FDS, VOs, and ignoring client-side properties I tried doing exactly that (dispatching the custom event in my setter) when using implicit getters/setters for my unmanagedProp ... but for some reason the bindings didn't work. However, if I use a propertyChange event (either dispatching it myself or letting Flex generate it), the bindings seems to work fine. However, as I said, in this case it still doesn't accomplish what I want ( i.e. having the DataStore ignore that property). Even if I could make the bindings with with my custom binding event, I'm not sure it would accomplish what I want. Jim 2006/8/17, Matt Chotin < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >: If you do [Bindable(event="unmanaged")] it is your responsibility to dispatch the unmanaged event. If you just do [Bindable] it will dispatch the propertyChange event which will case management to notice. So write a getter/setter with [Bindable(event="unmanagedPropChange")] and then in the setter dispatch that event. Matt ________________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Laing Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:57 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] FDS, VOs, and ignoring client-side properties Thanks for the idea, Matt. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I forgot to mention that my unmanaged property needs to be bindable, and it seems that enabling binding on this property causes the DataStore to keep track of the property just like all the managed properties. Curiously, binding on the unmanaged property only works when I don't use a custom event name. Simply saying [Bindable] on the unmanaged property causes the binding to work as it should (but also causes the unmanaged property to become managed). Saying [Bindable(event="someEvent")] causes the property to be treated as unmanaged ... but also causes binding not to work. I also tried using implicit getters/setters on the unmanaged property with similar results. Below is code similar to the code I used. Let me know if I'm doing something wrong. And thanks for the suggestion! Jim package com.wgint.navigator.vo { import mx.data.utils.Managed; import mx.data.IManaged; import mx.utils.UIDUtil; import mx.events.PropertyChangeEvent; import flash.events.EventDispatcher; import flash.events.IEventDispatcher; import flash.events.Event; [RemoteClass(alias="com.wgint.navigator.vo.ProjectTypeVO")] public class ProjectTypeVO implements IManaged { [Bindable(event="unmanagedPropChanged")] public var unmanagedProp: Boolean; private var _managedProp: int; private var _uid:String; private var _eventDispatcher:EventDispatcher = new EventDispatcher(IEventDispatcher(this)); // getters and setters for managed properties [Bindable(event="propertyChange")] public function get managedProp():int { _managedProp = Managed.getProperty(this, "managedProp", _managedProp); return _managedProp; } public function set managedProp(value:int):void { var oldValue:int = _managedProp; _managedProp = value; Managed.setProperty(this, "managedProp", oldValue, _managedProp); } // IManaged implementation [Bindable(event="propertyChange")] public function get uid():String { if (_uid == null) { _uid = UIDUtil.createUID(); } return _uid; } public function set uid(value:String):void { var oldValue:String = _uid; if (oldValue !== value) { _uid = value; var e:PropertyChangeEvent = PropertyChangeEvent.createUpdateEvent(this, "uid", oldValue, value) dispatchEvent(e); } } // IEventDispatcher implementation public function addEventListener(type:String, listener:Function, useCapture:Boolean = false, priority:int = 0, weakRef:Boolean = false):void { _eventDispatcher.addEventListener(type, listener, useCapture, priority, weakRef); } public function dispatchEvent(event:flash.events.Event):Boolean { return _eventDispatcher.dispatchEvent(event); } public function hasEventListener(type:String):Boolean { return _eventDispatcher.hasEventListener(type); } public function removeEventListener(type:String, listener:Function, useCapture:Boolean = false):void { _eventDispatcher.removeEventListener(type, listener, useCapture); } public function willTrigger(type:String):Boolean { return _eventDispatcher.willTrigger(type); } } } 2006/8/16, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Hmm, you might need to implement mx.data.IManaged yourself instead of relying > on IManaged. IManaged extends IUID (you must have a string property uid) and > IEventDispatcher (must be an event dispatcher). You will then need to > implement any managed property as follows (I haven't tested this, it's based > on reading the generated actionscript for a [Managed] class): > > > > import mx.data.utils.Managed; > > > > private var _test1:int; > > > > [Bindable(event="propertyChange")] > > public function get test1():int > > { > > _test1 = mx.data.utils.Managed.getProperty(this, "test1", _test1); > > return _test1; > > } > > public function set test1(value:int):void > > { > > var oldValue:int = this._ test1; > > _test1 = value; > > mx.data.utils.Managed.setProperty(this, "test1", oldValue, _test1); > > } > > > > I have no guarantees, but see how it goes? > > > > Matt > > > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim > Laing > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:27 AM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [flexcoders] FDS, VOs, and ignoring client-side properties > > > > > > > > We're using FDS on our project, and we're using a single DataStore > with autoCommit=false on all of our DataServices. This way, we're able > to have a single, application-wide save button to commit all the > latest changes. This save button is enabled based upon on the > DataStores' commitRequired property. > > In a few of my VOs, I have properties that do not have a corresponding > property in my server-side POJO. The reson is that these properties > are strictly used for keeping track of client-side state and are not > persisted in our database. > > My problem is this: setting these properties on the client causes > commitRequired to become true on our DataStore. This is sort of > annyoing, as there really are no changes that need to be persisted. Of > course, hitting the save button sends back the objects to the server > where they are simply ignored because nothing has actually changed on > them. > > So is there a way that I can force these properties to be ignored? Is > there some type of undocumented metadata tag that I'm missing? I seem > to remember something similar in Flex 1.5 to make serialization ignore > a property, but this is a slightly different case. > > Jim > -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
