RE: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding

2007-01-20 Thread Alex Uhlmann
Closer to your mx:Binding tag is: BindingUtils.bindProperty( userVO, Name, this, [ nameTextInput, text ] ); but keep in mind that binding of mx.binding.utils using ChangeWatcher and BindingUtils work differently from the mx.binding package (MXML compiler binding). The latter supports much more

Re: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding

2007-01-20 Thread Xavi Beumala
On 1/20/07, Alex Uhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd question why you would want to replace all our MXML bindings when it's working like a charm for you? ;) Aren't MXML bindings (curly braces, function bindings, mx:Binding/Observe) easier to write and maintain? AFAIK Not aplicable to

RE: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding

2007-01-20 Thread Mike Anderson
@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding On 1/20/07, Alex Uhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd question why you would want to replace all our MXML bindings when it's working like a charm for you? ;) Aren't MXML bindings (curly braces, function

RE: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding

2007-01-20 Thread Mike Anderson
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] BindingUtils.bindProperty versus mx:Binding Closer to your mx:Binding tag is: BindingUtils.bindProperty( userVO, Name, this, [ nameTextInput, text ] ); but keep in mind that binding of mx.binding.utils using ChangeWatcher and BindingUtils work differently from