Even BindingUtils didn't show off, RemoteObject from mx seems to be there.
The second option is enough.
"We hopefully will separate MX in libraries and will create a "jewel" config
that adds RPC and maybe others that could be needed."
That would be great.
Carlos Rovira escreveu no dia sexta,
I'm not an expert on asconfic, but I remember I solved it maintaining
"royale" as config and adding this:
"library-path": [
"${royalelib}/js/libs/MXRoyaleJS.swc"
],
"js-library-path": [
"${royalelib}/js/libs/MXRoyaleJS.swc"
],
I think maybe just the second was enough...
We hopefully will
Hello,
That's a good idea, because I want to avoid MX UI as much as possible,
since I decided for Royale, so Royale it is.
However I don't see so many problems for non-UI stuff.
My issue is that to work with MX, I saw that I need to change my
asconfig.json from "config": "royale" to "config":
Hi Hugo,
you can use MXRoyale in "Royale only" (i.e: jewel) apps.
You must to be careful, but code like RPC classes, validators, and probably
BindingUtils can be used.
I think while you don't use "visual" things, that should be ok. It maybe
would require you to try it, but at least RPC classes are
OK.
I'm using Royale only, so BindingUtils (mx version) is not available in my
case.
I will try to workaround in a different way (for sure I have to write more
code) but yes, BindingUtils is a short way in a single line to do the
things (it will be a missing feature).
Greg Dove escreveu no dia
When I originally wrote that, it was not intended to be used directly in
code, it was intended to support the metadata-driven injected bindings,
specifically with Crux. It is quite specific for Crux.
It does need BindableChainInfo instances in that last argument instead of
strings. Perhaps the
The following line of code, compiles without any issue:
BindingUtils.bindProperty(header, "minimized", content, ["visible"]);
However at runtime, I got the following error on Google Chrome Console:
Uncaught TypeError: Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot convert
visible to
