Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :)
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be
bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the
warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking
up to.
*From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
Behalf Of *Sefi Ninio
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:15 PM
*To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply, but this didn't work.
The interface extends IEventDispatcher as you suggested.
That required all implementing classes it also extend EventDispatcher
because of unimplemented interface functions.
And, even after all that, the warning remains!
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
I wonder, what happens, if you make a interface bindable. Does this change the code beeing created from the implementing class? Cheers Ralf. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking up to.
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
I hope not :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ralf Bokelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I wonder, what happens, if you make a interface bindable. Does this change the code beeing created from the implementing class? Cheers Ralf. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking up to. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links -- Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Um... I was (and am) talking about compile-time warning...
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :)
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be
bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the
warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking
up to.
*From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
Behalf Of *Sefi Ninio
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:15 PM
*To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply, but this didn't work.
The interface extends IEventDispatcher as you suggested.
That required all implementing classes it also extend EventDispatcher
because of unimplemented interface functions.
And, even after all that, the warning remains!
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
I tried to add the [Bindable] tag to the interface, but that did not make the compile-time warning go away... On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope not :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ralf Bokelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I wonder, what happens, if you make a interface bindable. Does this change the code beeing created from the implementing class? Cheers Ralf. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking up to. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links -- Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Ooops... I tried a clean build and it worked. Adding the [Bindable] tag to the interface made the warning go away! So thanks a lot Josh and Alex! :) I am now wondering, like Ralf, what are the implications of making the interface bindable... Does it mean that when one property changes all watchers are getting called (like a bindable calss)? How will this affect the implementing class behavior? Sefi On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Sefi Ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried to add the [Bindable] tag to the interface, but that did not make the compile-time warning go away... On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope not :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ralf Bokelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder, what happens, if you make a interface bindable. Does this change the code beeing created from the implementing class? Cheers Ralf. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought he was talking about a compile-time warning :) On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be bindable. The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the warning is a run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking up to. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links -- Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Hi everyone... I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off... I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining, among other things, a setter/getter function pair. I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not implementing an interface, but bear with me... The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined. Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me. I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as bindable will solve this. I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and still not get that warning... Thanks, Sefi
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
Links
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply, but this didn't work.
The interface extends IEventDispatcher as you suggested.
That required all implementing classes it also extend EventDispatcher
because of unimplemented interface functions.
And, even after all that, the warning remains!
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
Links
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Ah right, I understand your problem now :) If you can't add [Bindable] to
the interface (I don't know if you can or not), you're always going to get
that warning at compile-time. There's no way for the compiler to know if
your impl is bindable or not.
-Josh
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Sefi Ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply, but this didn't work.
The interface extends IEventDispatcher as you suggested.
That required all implementing classes it also extend EventDispatcher
because of unimplemented interface functions.
And, even after all that, the warning remains!
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
Links
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
The final class that gets listened to needs to have its property be bindable.
The interface being bindable gets you past the compiler, but the warning is a
run-time when it actually looks at the instance it is hooking up to.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sefi
Ninio
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:15 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Binding using Interface
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply, but this didn't work.
The interface extends IEventDispatcher as you suggested.
That required all implementing classes it also extend EventDispatcher because
of unimplemented interface functions.
And, even after all that, the warning remains!
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public interface IMyBindable extends IEventDispatcher {}
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM, sefi.ninio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone...
I get a binding warning I just can't seem to shake off...
I have an interface (let's call it IMyInterface) and it is defining,
among other things, a setter/getter function pair.
I know, I know - this screams extending a base class and not
implementing an interface, but bear with me...
The implementing classes implement those setter/getter pair, and the
getter function has the [Bindable] metatag defined.
Sure, Binding works like a charm, but that warning bugs me.
I know extending a base class that implements those setter/getter as
bindable will solve this.
I'm just wandering if there's a way to work with an interface and
still not get that warning...
Thanks,
Sefi
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
