Yes, your login example illustrates a common way to drive the view
through the ModelLocator. However, I agree with you that it would
be
cleaner to have a view method to do this sort of thing instead of
a huge
model with lots of references. The only problem with
referencing a view
function directly from a command, is that if you
remove the view or the
function, the command breaks (violates
encapsulation). If you really
wanted to do this from a command
though, you could traverse the display list
ID's like so (not
recommended):
Application.application.viewMain.viewRef.resetForm();
An
alternative would be to dispatch a custom event, from the
command, that
would be listened for by the view. I've addressed
this issue here before. My
personal opinion is that a responder
that goes from the command, through the
FrontController, to the
view, would be very helpful for these types of
functions. The
Cairngorm experts here haven't really provided much guidance,
either
through samples or blog postings, in this area. Perhaps as more
people, like you, ask similar questions, more insight will be
provided.
Until then, since we want to remain as true to the
Cairngorm architecture as
possible, binding all state (local and
shared) to the ModelLocator seems to
be the recommended solution.
Thanks for the post,
-TH
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com,
"Diego Guebel"
<dguebel.subscripti[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Hi Tim,
> this might be a silly example:
> I have a login form, when
the command responds onFault I want to
able to
> reset the user and
password textfields.
> doing something like:
>
viewRef.resetForm();
>
> you might suggest to do something
like this in the view:
> <mx:TextInput id="username"
text="{login.username}"/>
> <mx:TextInput id="password"
text="{login.password}"/>
>
> and something like this
in the command:
> public function onFault(event:* =
null):void
> {
> model.login.username = "";
>
model.login.password = "";
> }
>
> I think this is the
best practice, but I was just wondering as I'm
moving
> from Arp
where you have a view reference in the command and is
really
> common
to do things like viewRef.method()
> something I think it would be
clearer to have a method to do this
sort of
> thing instead of a huge
model with lots of references....
>
> Diego.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:17:41 +1200, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Hi Diego,
> >
> > In general a
Command and a View shouldn't know about each other.
> > Usually, the
state of a view is changed by binding to the
> > ModelLocator; which is
updated by a Command. What does your view
> > function do?
>
>
> > -TH
> >
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com,
"Diego Guebel"
> > <dguebel.subscription@> wrote:
>
>>
> >> Hi there,
> >> I wonder what would be the
best way to call a function in a view
> > when I
> >> get a
result in a command.
> >> what is the way to have a reference to the
view in the command
> > since
> >>
viewlocator/viewhelper is not more recommended?
> >> Thanks,
Diego.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
