RE: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
I think we’re talking past each
other here. *DO NOT USE CURLY BRACES FOR
[ClassReference]* As soon as you use {} yes, you will put it in
_bindings. [ClassReference] is only so that you can specify a class name and
have it linked so that you don’t have to use Binding to have the
dependency injected. I think it may only work if the var is typed as Function
or Object. If you want to use binding for other properties they will show up in
_bindings and you’ll have to do your hacks.
We are still hoping to release much of the
framework source code but it won’t be for Alpha and we’re not sure
when it will be or if in the end we’ll be able to make it happen.
Matt
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005
2:02 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
On 10/25/05, Matt
Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was talking 1.5 for ClassReference, it shouldn't go in
BindingManager if you don't have curly braces. Not sure why it didn't
behave for you.
Nope, Still places them inside the binding Manager.heh found a bug then?
i tried it on a few different classes, and all did the same.. the moment curly
braces enter the equation, its _level0.document._bindings. I'm using FAST to
inspect the _level0 heirachy and it does show up there aswell as within trace
statements i've made...
class com.mossyblog.test extends mx.containers.HBox {
[ClassReference]
public var testAttr:Boolean;
}
The organization of bindings is different in 2.0 I think, but
in any case we have no intention of that stuff being exposed for other purposes
so I wouldn't count on us changing anything for you here J
So, (probably not the forum for this) the chances of us getting source
for FLEX 2.0 framework is ummm... not likely? I say this as i've often relied
on the frameworks source to help reduce verbose MXML to simplistic ones... by
using MXML tag to do one or more things at once..
Glad you liked the accent, trying to offend as many Aussies
as possible, Pete Farland almost cried in pain J
Its not that bad, could be worse, Steve Irwin style umm..thats even painful for
aussies... we don't all sound like that, and of course i personally prefer to
stage dive onto great white sharks, where as others prefer crocs... thats of
course after we overcome our fear of not being allowed to jump into kangaroo
pouches when we are little ;) ...damn, if i only could of worked in "throw
a shrimp on the barbe" in there somehow...
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
9:49 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:
[flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
On
10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you want to ensure that the class gets linked but is
available at creation up you can use [ClassReference] as the metadata on the
property of your component and we'll link it in so that you don't have to use
bindings. That should give things to you a little earlier.
[ClassReference]
var monkeyClass:Object;
Then when you startup look if monkeyClass is a Function
(you're done) or String (pray that it was linked). But binding becomes
unnecessary. If you always want the class reference you could of course
type your variable as Function.
So this
is all in FLEX 2.0 yeah? not for 1.5.. ie 1.5 seems to do a parse where it
seperates complex attributes from simple, if complex store in binding manager
else show in obj.properties..
Flex 2 will allow you to say that a variable should be of
type Class.
Yeah, haven't had the chance this week to jump back
into 2.0, but will revisit this then :) heheh.
Is this enough or do you still need the binding stuff
later?
Personally,
i'd like the binding manager to represend its bindings in a
"Struct/hashmap" rather then keys havin dot.notations.. in that, if
the following exists:
Then inside document._bindings it would look like this:
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr1"]
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr2"]
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr3"]
Rather then.
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr1"]
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr2"]
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr3"]
Not sure, but to me the later sounds more optimal as then you could kill a
branch, rather then forloop text pattern searching?
Yeah, the deferred instantiation structure to work with
binding and all that jazz was pretty insane. Almost every engineer on the
app model wa
Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was talking 1.5 for ClassReference, it
shouldn't go in BindingManager if you don't have curly braces. Not
sure why it didn't behave for you.
Nope, Still places them inside the binding Manager.heh found a bug then?
i tried it on a few different classes, and all did the same.. the
moment curly braces enter the equation, its _level0.document._bindings.
I'm using FAST to inspect the _level0 heirachy and it does show up
there aswell as within trace statements i've made...
class com.mossyblog.test extends mx.containers.HBox {
[ClassReference]
public var testAttr:Boolean;
}
The organization of bindings is different
in 2.0 I think, but in any case we have no intention of that stuff being
exposed for other purposes so I wouldn't count on us changing anything
for you here JSo,
(probably not the forum for this) the chances of us getting source for
FLEX 2.0 framework is ummm... not likely? I say this as i've often
relied on the frameworks source to help reduce verbose MXML to
simplistic ones... by using MXML tag to do one or more things at once..
Glad you liked the accent, trying to
offend as many Aussies as possible, Pete Farland almost cried in pain J
Its not that bad, could be worse, Steve Irwin style umm..thats even
painful for aussies... we don't all sound like that, and of course i
personally prefer to stage dive onto great white sharks, where as
others prefer crocs... thats of course after we overcome our fear of
not being allowed to jump into kangaroo pouches when we are little ;)
...damn, if i only could of worked in "throw a shrimp on the barbe" in
there somehow...
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott
Barnes
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
9:49 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
On 10/25/05, Matt
Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you want to ensure that the class gets linked but is
available at creation up you can use [ClassReference] as the metadata on the
property of your component and we'll link it in so that you don't have to use
bindings. That should give things to you a little earlier.
[ClassReference]
var monkeyClass:Object;
Then when you startup look if monkeyClass is a Function
(you're done) or String (pray that it was linked). But binding becomes
unnecessary. If you always want the class reference you could of course
type your variable as Function.
So this is all in FLEX 2.0 yeah? not for 1.5.. ie 1.5 seems to do a
parse where it seperates complex attributes from simple, if complex store in
binding manager else show in obj.properties..
Flex 2 will allow you to say that a variable should be of
type Class.
Yeah, haven't had the
chance this week to jump back into 2.0, but will revisit this then :) heheh.
Is this enough or do you still need the binding stuff
later?
Personally, i'd like the binding manager to represend its bindings in a
"Struct/hashmap" rather then keys havin dot.notations.. in that, if
the following exists:
Then inside document._bindings it would look like this:
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr1"]
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr2"]
document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr3"]
Rather then.
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr1"]
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr2"]
document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr3"]
Not sure, but to me the later sounds more optimal as then you could kill a
branch, rather then forloop text pattern searching?
Yeah, the deferred instantiation structure to work with
binding and all that jazz was pretty insane. Almost every engineer on the
app model was involved in it somewhere J
Anyone who says the FLEX Engineer team are hacks, umm deserves a big ol
fashion "slap with a trout" ;) i'm impressed anyway, now i have to
relearn everying for FLEX 2.0... geez...hopefully there is some transfer there
in terms of logic that i can leveridge (ie i'm hoping its not too radical in
change of framework).
Thanks Matt.
(P.S... nice Aussie Accent at MAX btw.. it was disturbing heh)
Matt
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
4:54 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Hi Matt,
On
10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well in this particular example you know that cellRenderer doesn't
need to use a binding _expression_, it can be done as a string and we know that
CellRenderers are usually classes so w
RE: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
I was talking 1.5 for ClassReference, it shouldn’t go in BindingManager if you don’t have curly braces. Not sure why it didn’t behave for you. The organization of bindings is different in 2.0 I think, but in any case we have no intention of that stuff being exposed for other purposes so I wouldn’t count on us changing anything for you here J Glad you liked the accent, trying to offend as many Aussies as possible, Pete Farland almost cried in pain J From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:49 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5) On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you want to ensure that the class gets linked but is available at creation up you can use [ClassReference] as the metadata on the property of your component and we'll link it in so that you don't have to use bindings. That should give things to you a little earlier. [ClassReference] var monkeyClass:Object; Then when you startup look if monkeyClass is a Function (you're done) or String (pray that it was linked). But binding becomes unnecessary. If you always want the class reference you could of course type your variable as Function. So this is all in FLEX 2.0 yeah? not for 1.5.. ie 1.5 seems to do a parse where it seperates complex attributes from simple, if complex store in binding manager else show in obj.properties.. Flex 2 will allow you to say that a variable should be of type Class. Yeah, haven't had the chance this week to jump back into 2.0, but will revisit this then :) heheh. Is this enough or do you still need the binding stuff later? Personally, i'd like the binding manager to represend its bindings in a "Struct/hashmap" rather then keys havin dot.notations.. in that, if the following exists: Then inside document._bindings it would look like this: document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr1"] document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr2"] document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr3"] Rather then. document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr1"] document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr2"] document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr3"] Not sure, but to me the later sounds more optimal as then you could kill a branch, rather then forloop text pattern searching? Yeah, the deferred instantiation structure to work with binding and all that jazz was pretty insane. Almost every engineer on the app model was involved in it somewhere J Anyone who says the FLEX Engineer team are hacks, umm deserves a big ol fashion "slap with a trout" ;) i'm impressed anyway, now i have to relearn everying for FLEX 2.0... geez...hopefully there is some transfer there in terms of logic that i can leveridge (ie i'm hoping its not too radical in change of framework). Thanks Matt. (P.S... nice Aussie Accent at MAX btw.. it was disturbing heh) Matt From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:54 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5) Hi Matt, On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well in this particular example you know that cellRenderer doesn't need to use a binding _expression_, it can be done as a string and we know that CellRenderers are usually classes so we do a lookup? I should of used a different naming for my attribute. I've created my own MXML tag *component* that in a nutshell does one or more things (rather then occupying verbose XML, i decided to consolidate a few concepts to less tags, resulting in part-instruction, part-creation). Anyway, the concept is that if i can insert my own attribute within a tag, that has "class signatures" (if thats the correct term), the compiler will also include these classes at compile time... ie if i make no reference to "com.mossyblog.monkey" anywhere but: then essentially i'm not only "importing" this class auto-magically, but i'm also setting this tag up to use createClassObject( monkeyClass ) style approach aswell. If i go by using string, then I'll have to assume that somewhere else, this class was imported correctly... figured we are in MXML, why not fly by the seat of our pants hehe. But assuming the issue still needs to be solved bindings tend to get assigned right before the initialize event of the component fires. I don't remember if the document._bindings will even be instantiated by the time createChildren is called on the document, though it might be. It It does. The mom
Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you want to ensure that the class gets linked but is available at creation up you can use [ClassReference] as the metadata on the property of your component and we'll link it in so that you don't have to use bindings. That should give things to you a little earlier. [ClassReference] var monkeyClass:Object; Then when you startup look if monkeyClass is a Function (you're done) or String (pray that it was linked). But binding becomes unnecessary. If you always want the class reference you could of course type your variable as Function.So this is all in FLEX 2.0 yeah? not for 1.5.. ie 1.5 seems to do a parse where it seperates complex attributes from simple, if complex store in binding manager else show in obj.properties.. Flex 2 will allow you to say that a variable should be of type Class.Yeah, haven't had the chance this week to jump back into 2.0, but will revisit this then :) heheh. Is this enough or do you still need the binding stuff later? Personally, i'd like the binding manager to represend its bindings in a "Struct/hashmap" rather then keys havin dot.notations.. in that, if the following exists: Then inside document._bindings it would look like this: document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr1"] document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr2"] document._bindingsByDestination["monkey.attr3"] Rather then. document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr1"] document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr2"] document._bindingsByDestination.monkey["attr3"] Not sure, but to me the later sounds more optimal as then you could kill a branch, rather then forloop text pattern searching? Yeah, the deferred instantiation structure to work with binding and all that jazz was pretty insane. Almost every engineer on the app model was involved in it somewhere J Anyone who says the FLEX Engineer team are hacks, umm deserves a big ol fashion "slap with a trout" ;) i'm impressed anyway, now i have to relearn everying for FLEX 2.0... geez...hopefully there is some transfer there in terms of logic that i can leveridge (ie i'm hoping its not too radical in change of framework). Thanks Matt. (P.S... nice Aussie Accent at MAX btw.. it was disturbing heh) Matt From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:54 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5) Hi Matt, On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well in this particular example you know that cellRenderer doesn't need to use a binding _expression_, it can be done as a string and we know that CellRenderers are usually classes so we do a lookup? I should of used a different naming for my attribute. I've created my own MXML tag *component* that in a nutshell does one or more things (rather then occupying verbose XML, i decided to consolidate a few concepts to less tags, resulting in part-instruction, part-creation). Anyway, the concept is that if i can insert my own attribute within a tag, that has "class signatures" (if thats the correct term), the compiler will also include these classes at compile time... ie if i make no reference to "com.mossyblog.monkey" anywhere but: then essentially i'm not only "importing" this class auto-magically, but i'm also setting this tag up to use createClassObject( monkeyClass ) style approach aswell. If i go by using string, then I'll have to assume that somewhere else, this class was imported correctly... figured we are in MXML, why not fly by the seat of our pants hehe. But assuming the issue still needs to be solved bindings tend to get assigned right before the initialize event of the component fires. I don't remember if the document._bindings will even be instantiated by the time createChildren is called on the document, though it might be. It It does. The moment mx:Application container gets constructed, we have document._bindings. I've stepped through the frameworks instantiation process overall, and man, how you guys sat down and wrote this framework is amazing (heh, i mean that in terms of, some smart ideas put into play to reduce memory). I've simply resigned myself to the fact that inside each class, is a variable that has "knownBindingPropertiers" or whatever you want to call it, and it simply cycles through these properties and looks for this._document._bindings[this.id + "." knownBindingProperties[i]]._srcFunc() for the value(s) i need in order to createClassObject or createChild/createComponent. I've not yet checked to see how FLEX 2.0 framework does the overall construct, but hopef
RE: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
If you want to ensure that the class gets linked
but is available at creation up you can use [ClassReference] as the metadata on
the property of your component and we’ll link it in so that you don’t
have to use bindings. That should give things to you a little earlier.
[ClassReference]
var monkeyClass:Object;
Then when you startup look if monkeyClass
is a Function (you’re done) or String (pray that it was linked).
But binding becomes unnecessary. If you always want the class reference
you could of course type your variable as Function.
Flex 2 will allow you to say that a
variable should be of type Class.
Is this enough or do you still need the
binding stuff later?
Yeah, the deferred instantiation structure
to work with binding and all that jazz was pretty insane. Almost every
engineer on the app model was involved in it somewhere J
Matt
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Barnes
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
4:54 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Hi Matt,
On 10/25/05, Matt
Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well in this particular example you know that cellRenderer
doesn't need to use a binding _expression_, it can be done as a string and we
know that CellRenderers are usually classes so we do a lookup?
I should of used a different naming for my attribute. I've created my
own MXML tag *component* that in a nutshell does one or more things (rather
then occupying verbose XML, i decided to consolidate a few concepts to less
tags, resulting in part-instruction, part-creation).
Anyway, the concept is that if i can insert my own attribute within a tag, that
has "class signatures" (if thats the correct term), the compiler will
also include these classes at compile time... ie if i make no reference to
"com.mossyblog.monkey" anywhere but:
then
essentially i'm not only "importing" this class auto-magically, but
i'm also setting this tag up to use createClassObject( monkeyClass ) style
approach aswell. If i go by using string, then I'll have to assume that
somewhere else, this class was imported correctly... figured we are in MXML,
why not fly by the seat of our pants hehe.
But assuming the issue still needs to be solved bindings tend
to get assigned right before the initialize event of the component fires.
I don't remember if the document._bindings will even be instantiated by the
time createChildren is called on the document, though it might be. It
It does. The moment mx:Application container gets constructed, we have
document._bindings. I've stepped through the frameworks instantiation process
overall, and man, how you guys sat down and wrote this framework is amazing
(heh, i mean that in terms of, some smart ideas put into play to reduce
memory).
I've simply resigned myself to the fact that inside each class, is a variable
that has "knownBindingPropertiers" or whatever you want to call it,
and it simply cycles through these properties and looks for
this._document._bindings[this.id + "."
knownBindingProperties[i]]._srcFunc() for the value(s) i need in order to
createClassObject or createChild/createComponent.
I've not yet checked to see how FLEX 2.0 framework does the overall construct,
but hopefully there is similiar routines in play? hopefully...
could happen while the app itself is going through its
initialize phase and the bindings will be assigned later. So
unfortunately the answer is no, no great way of reliably determining what
properties will be assigned into you before you are constructed.
The getUIComponentWatcherForDestination is to make the
validation errors work correctly, it isn't going to provide what you need.
Matt
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:09
PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Just to add more perspective to this.
I basically want to have the ability to provide an array of some sort, that
will turn off binding for a given property and simply add it to a containers
properties.
At present if you did cellRenderer="{ whatever }", that
argument wouldn't show up in obj.properties list, unless its a simple string
value. It instead gets placed in document._bindings. What i'm trying to do is
remove this out of bindings (that or find some way to get information on all
known attributes provided within MXML and their values at createChildren())
So far, the only way i can see this being done is to look in two parts,
obj.properties and look in obj.document._bindings or
obj.document._bindingsByDestination[dest]...
Cat
Re: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Hi Matt,
On 10/25/05, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well in this particular example you know
that cellRenderer doesn't need to use a binding _expression_, it can be
done as a string and we know that CellRenderers are usually classes so we do a
lookup?I
should of used a different naming for my attribute. I've created my own
MXML tag *component* that in a nutshell does one or more things (rather
then occupying verbose XML, i decided to consolidate a few concepts to
less tags, resulting in part-instruction, part-creation).
Anyway, the concept is that if i can insert my own attribute within a
tag, that has "class signatures" (if thats the correct term), the
compiler will also include these classes at compile time... ie if i
make no reference to "com.mossyblog.monkey" anywhere but:
then
essentially i'm not only "importing" this class auto-magically, but i'm
also setting this tag up to use createClassObject( monkeyClass ) style
approach aswell. If i go by using string, then I'll have to assume that
somewhere else, this class was imported correctly... figured we are in
MXML, why not fly by the seat of our pants hehe.
But assuming the issue still needs to be
solved bindings tend to get assigned right before the initialize event of the
component fires. I don't remember if the document._bindings will
even be instantiated by the time createChildren is called on the document,
though it might be. It
It does. The moment mx:Application container gets constructed, we have
document._bindings. I've stepped through the frameworks instantiation
process overall, and man, how you guys sat down and wrote this
framework is amazing (heh, i mean that in terms of, some smart ideas
put into play to reduce memory).
I've simply resigned myself to the fact that inside each class, is a
variable that has "knownBindingPropertiers" or whatever you want to
call it, and it simply cycles through these properties and looks for
this._document._bindings[this.id + "."
knownBindingProperties[i]]._srcFunc() for the value(s) i need in order
to createClassObject or createChild/createComponent.
I've not yet checked to see how FLEX 2.0 framework does the overall
construct, but hopefully there is similiar routines in play?
hopefully...
could happen while the app itself is going through
its initialize phase and the bindings will be assigned later. So
unfortunately the answer is no, no great way of reliably determining what
properties will be assigned into you before you are constructed.
The getUIComponentWatcherForDestination is
to make the validation errors work correctly, it isn't going to provide
what you need.
Matt
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott
Barnes
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005
10:09 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Just to add more
perspective to this.
I basically want to have the ability to provide an array of some sort, that
will turn off binding for a given property and simply add it to a containers
properties.
At present if you did cellRenderer="{ whatever }", that
argument wouldn't show up in obj.properties list, unless its a simple string
value. It instead gets placed in document._bindings. What i'm trying to do is
remove this out of bindings (that or find some way to get information on all
known attributes provided within MXML and their values at createChildren())
So far, the only way i can see this being done is to look in two parts,
obj.properties and look in obj.document._bindings or
obj.document._bindingsByDestination[dest]...
Catch22, is if i do this, i have to *know* all potential properties being
passed into a custom MXML components (maybe a simmiliar mergeProperties array maybe?
Anyway, anyone within MM or in this list had much experience with MXML tags and
how to intercept various routines before construct commences, i'd greatly
appreciate it.
On 10/24/05, Scott Barnes <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heyas,
I've been wanting to basically access a property on a MXML tag thats not
"string", ie cellRenderer="{ com.mossyblog.myRenderer }"
before "createComponent" is executed. In that, i want to firstly
determine what the renderer is and based on this, delegate that instantion
elsewhere.
Now, on first pass i noticed that the moment you place "{}" within an
argument, BindingManager basically takes that and treats it as a
"binding". How does one ask the BindingManager for that reference at
say "createChildren"?
Is it a matter of:
mx.managers.BindingManager.getUIComponentWatcherForDestination(this, this.id )
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
ht
RE: [flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Well in this particular example you know
that cellRenderer doesn’t need to use a binding _expression_, it can be
done as a string and we know that CellRenderers are usually classes so we do a
lookup?
But assuming the issue still needs to be
solved bindings tend to get assigned right before the initialize event of the
component fires. I don’t remember if the document._bindings will
even be instantiated by the time createChildren is called on the document,
though it might be. It could happen while the app itself is going through
its initialize phase and the bindings will be assigned later. So
unfortunately the answer is no, no great way of reliably determining what
properties will be assigned into you before you are constructed.
The getUIComponentWatcherForDestination is
to make the validation errors work correctly, it isn’t going to provide
what you need.
Matt
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Barnes
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005
10:09 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re:
BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Just to add more
perspective to this.
I basically want to have the ability to provide an array of some sort, that
will turn off binding for a given property and simply add it to a containers
properties.
At present if you did cellRenderer="{ whatever }", that
argument wouldn't show up in obj.properties list, unless its a simple string
value. It instead gets placed in document._bindings. What i'm trying to do is
remove this out of bindings (that or find some way to get information on all
known attributes provided within MXML and their values at createChildren())
So far, the only way i can see this being done is to look in two parts,
obj.properties and look in obj.document._bindings or
obj.document._bindingsByDestination[dest]...
Catch22, is if i do this, i have to *know* all potential properties being
passed into a custom MXML components (maybe a simmiliar mergeProperties array maybe?
Anyway, anyone within MM or in this list had much experience with MXML tags and
how to intercept various routines before construct commences, i'd greatly
appreciate it.
On 10/24/05, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heyas,
I've been wanting to basically access a property on a MXML tag thats not
"string", ie cellRenderer="{ com.mossyblog.myRenderer }"
before "createComponent" is executed. In that, i want to firstly
determine what the renderer is and based on this, delegate that instantion
elsewhere.
Now, on first pass i noticed that the moment you place "{}" within an
argument, BindingManager basically takes that and treats it as a
"binding". How does one ask the BindingManager for that reference at
say "createChildren"?
Is it a matter of:
mx.managers.BindingManager.getUIComponentWatcherForDestination(this, this.id )
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
--
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
Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[flexcoders] Re: BindingManager and Properties interogation.. (Flex 1.5)
Just to add more perspective to this.
I basically want to have the ability to provide an array of some sort,
that will turn off binding for a given property and simply add it to a
containers properties.
At present if you did cellRenderer="{ whatever }", that argument
wouldn't show up in obj.properties list, unless its a simple string
value. It instead gets placed in document._bindings. What i'm trying to
do is remove this out of bindings (that or find some way to get
information on all known attributes provided within MXML and their
values at createChildren())
So far, the only way i can see this being done is to look in two parts,
obj.properties and look in obj.document._bindings or
obj.document._bindingsByDestination[dest]...
Catch22, is if i do this, i have to *know* all potential properties
being passed into a custom MXML components (maybe a simmiliar
mergeProperties array maybe?
Anyway, anyone within MM or in this list had much experience with MXML
tags and how to intercept various routines before construct commences,
i'd greatly appreciate it.On 10/24/05, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heyas,
I've been wanting to basically access a property on a MXML tag thats
not "string", ie cellRenderer="{ com.mossyblog.myRenderer }" before
"createComponent" is executed. In that, i want to firstly determine
what the renderer is and based on this, delegate that instantion
elsewhere.
Now, on first pass i noticed that the moment you place "{}" within an
argument, BindingManager basically takes that and treats it as a
"binding". How does one ask the BindingManager for that reference at
say "createChildren"?
Is it a matter of:
mx.managers.BindingManager.getUIComponentWatcherForDestination(this, this.id )--
Regards,Scott Barneshttp://www.mossyblog.com
-- Regards,Scott Barneshttp://www.mossyblog.com
--
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
Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
