> Verify errors generally mean that you fooled the compiler somehow.
> Sometimes, name collisions can fool the compiler.
Hmmm, odd. I wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. What I did to
fix the problem in two of the cases was to move the code that creates
the new event outside of the dispatch
I've not really had those problems myself Tink.
I don't dispatch any standard cairngorm events, instead I have events that
extend it and are (usually!) fairly well named to reflect what's happening.
Maybe that's because for me they normally carry some data, and I like that data
to be as strongly
ServiceFacade.getInstance().loadCats();
public function loadCats():void {
var handlers : IResponder = new
mx.rpc.Responder(onResults_loadCatalog,fault);
getDelegate(handlers).loadCatalog();
}
Looks like a terrible solution.
I agree with your comments regarding the Co
Verify errors generally mean that you fooled the compiler somehow.
Sometimes, name collisions can fool the compiler.
As far as E4x goes, the code you showed may mean that XMLDataItem3 may
not be in the default namespace.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [ma
just call responder.result or reponder.fault directly from your delegate :
so lets say you need to sum 2 integers ( 1+ 1), and for your remote version you
have a call to do that, say it's sum(int1:int, int2:int)
you remote delegate would have a method looking rather like this :
(assume integerP
Appreciate any clarification on the following - am converting my
previously non -service embedded functions to Cairngorm. Command +
Delegate works by the responder calling "result" or "fauLt" in
Command. Responder is added to Service, right? So in my banal example
of "add 1 + 1", where does the res
For some reason I've been seeing a lot of verify errors on a project
I'm working on. The error always seems to be:
VerifyError: Error #1025: An invalid register 5 was accessed.
It seems to be related to constructing an event within a
dispatchEvent call, but I've done this countless times and have
Cool, thanks!
~Steve
http://lanctr.com/
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Douglas Knudsen
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:30 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] [Bindable] variables
Nope, only visually different.
DK
On 5/3/08
Nope, only visually different.
DK
On 5/3/08, Steve Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While doing the examples out of my Flex 3 book I had a question that, as far
> as I can tell, isn't covered by the book. Is there any difference between
> the following two declarations?
>
>
>
> [Bindable]
>
>
While doing the examples out of my Flex 3 book I had a question that, as far
as I can tell, isn't covered by the book. Is there any difference between
the following two declarations?
[Bindable]
private var foo:String;
OR
[Bindable] private var foo:String;
Thanks!
~Steve
ht
I have to agree with MichNiu here.
The CairngormEventDispatcher obsfucates the code. i.e. you come back
to a project 6 months down the line, its difficult to find in the
view where your CairngormEvents are dispatch.
What is the difference of the view knowing what event it has to
dispatch
Hello,
I've been playing around with the Flex charting components, and I seem to be
running into an issue when I try to plot (draw) a line on the graph. I am
using the CartesianDataCanvas.moveTo and lineTo functions and it seems to
work ok for the Y axis, but not the X.
I posted an example with v
12 matches
Mail list logo
