Hans,
This is a sort of workaround...
In the super class:
1) declare and define the states
private function init(arr:Array) : void
{
var newState : State;
var i:int; for(i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
{
var id : String = arr[i].data;
newState = new State();
newState.name = id;
states.push(newState);
}
}
2) getter method
protected function getState(id:String) : State
{
var i:int; for (i=0; i<states.length; i++)
{
var state : mx.states.State = states[i];
if (id == state.name)
return state;
}
return null;
}
In the child class:
public function codeMinimizedState() : void
{
var state : mx.states.State = getState("minimized");
var p : SetProperty = new SetProperty();
p.name = ...;
p.value = ...;
p.target = ...;
state.overrides[0] = p;
...
}
...
The child class could implement an interface like:
public interface ICodeState
{
public function codeMinimizedState() : void
public function codeMaximizedState() : void
...
}
I think you're working in Belgium, right? I work not far from you in
Luxembourg.
Regards,
Olivier
________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Van De Velde Hans
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 5:11 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Interface class for states?
Thanks for your reply,
but this is not exactly what I need... :-}
What I need is an (exotic) way to force the presence of
certain states in a MXML component.
For example we're developing www.belgacom.tv <http://www.belgacom.tv>
in group and
I want to make sure that everyone extending the "GeneralPortlet" class
implements has at least these states:
<mx:states>
<mx:State name="minimized">
</mx:State>
<mx:State name="maximized">
</mx:State>
<mx:State name="normal">
</mx:State>
<mx:State name="icon">
</mx:State>
<mx:State name="edit">
</mx:State>
</mx:states>
Can this be done?
wkr,
Hans.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webdevotion
Sent: maandag 15 januari 2007 15:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Interface class for states?
Hey Hans,
Look at this blogpost:
http://casario.blogs.com/mmworld/2006/08/implementing_in.html
<http://casario.blogs.com/mmworld/2006/08/implementing_in.html>
succes ermee ; )
---------------------
An electronic message is not binding on its sender.
Any message referring to a binding engagement must be confirmed in
writing and duly signed.
---------------------
---------------------
An electronic message is not binding on its sender.
Any message referring to a binding engagement must be confirmed in writing and
duly signed.
---------------------
