[flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter

[Anthony DeBonis]

We use static constants for all these properties so we don't end up with simple 
type Os

Example:
static public const PROP_APPLICATION_IS_READY:String = "applicationIsReady";
private var _applicationIsReady:Boolean;
+ setter/getter

And in the map




Odd to see it trapping the type check on foo... but hope this helps.

Anthony


--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth  wrote:
>
> Any Mate users here? The forums are down again.
> 
> I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> Elsewhere:
> 
> 
> 
> This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String"
> 
> If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in
> question has constructor arguments.
> 
> What's the correct approach here? Thanks.
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter

[Richard Rodseth]

Thanks Tim. No, that does not compile. I'll try again on the forums, though
I have a workaround in the meantime.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Tim Hoff  wrote:

>
>
> Just a stab Richard, but do the binding brackets make any difference?
>
>  targetKey="foo" source="{ legacyModel }" sourceKey="foo"/>
>
> -TH
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth  wrote:
> >
> > Any Mate users here? The forums are down again.
> >
> > I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows:
> >
> >  instance="{this.model}"/>
> >
> > Elsewhere:
> >
> > 
> >
> > This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String"
> >
> > If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in
> > question has constructor arguments.
> >
> > What's the correct approach here? Thanks.
> >
>  
>

[flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter

[Tim Hoff]

Just a stab Richard, but do the binding brackets make any difference?



-TH

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth  wrote:
>
> Any Mate users here? The forums are down again.
>
> I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows:
>
> 
>
> Elsewhere:
>
> 
>
> This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String"
>
> If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in
> question has constructor arguments.
>
> What's the correct approach here? Thanks.
>