OK, I think I was confusing binding and wire-up. I have it working now by implementing Bindable and using an include. Thanks.
Curious - if I didn't use an include, and had @WTK fields in my subclass, would they get wired up (I think I had that working before)? If so, how could I add listeners to to the @WTK fields, since I assume they would be null until the constructor finished? Michael Bushe Software Architect/Developer mich...@bushe.com www.bushe.com On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Greg Brown <gkbr...@mac.com> wrote: > > Yup, making it a root element works. I think it's strange that the > semantics of an XML element changes at the root element. Why not always > call initialize for Bindable elements? > > The namespace is defined at the WTKX document level, not the element level, > so it would be odd to bind to anything other than the root element. > > > Otherwise, what's the best way to initialize a component that's not the > root element? > > Generally, you'd do this in the initialize() method for the root element. > However, another option would be to create subclasses for your inner > elements: > > <foo:MyWindow> > <content> > <foo:MyPushButton/> > </content> > </foo: MyWindow> > > The MyPushButton instance won't be bound to (for the reason I mention > above), but you can still perform initialization (e.g. event wire-up) in the > constructor. > > >
