u have to keep track of updating those variables in your commands... no thanks, I'd rather have it baked in. - Original Message - From: "Dimitrios Gianninas" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:53 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Respo
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 01:00, Tim Hoff wrote:
Sure, in one way or another, all of this can be accomplished with
binding to variables in the ModelLocator, Alerts and PopUps. But,
inho, binding state for the small things, that are soley related to
a local view and conditional on the result of
instance to update afterwards.
Dimitrios
Gianninas
RIADeveloper
Optimal
Payments Inc.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim HoffSent:
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:06 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm
Responder interface changes
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 13:25, Dimitrios Gianninas wrote:
where I had multiple instances of the same window created, I would send a
ref of the view to the command so it would know which window instance to
update afterwards.
Were finding we have to do that quite a lot, and it seems like we're
Developer
Optimal Payments Inc.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Hoff
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:06 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
-
From: Ralf Bokelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
How about creating a new class SearchResults with all the different
bindable state variables in it? This way you don't loose
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
HoffSent: 11 July 2006 14:35To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm
Responder interface changes
Oh, please don't get me wrong, you're solution is great. It really got
@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm
Responder interface changes
Oh, please don't get me wrong, you're solution is great. It really got me
thinking in a different direction. I'm just trying to come up with a
standardized way to solve this need, that will generically work for the
majority of use
]
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Hoff
Sent: 11 July 2006 14:35
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface
changes
Oh, please don't
about
ensuring success, and yet open to ideas is pimp!
- Original Message -
From: Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Great,
The migration issue is exactly why I
Yeah, keeping it simple, in a way that almost hurts, is the hardest
thing to do.
Cheers,
Ralf.
On 7/11/06, JesterXL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just have to say I don't want Steven or Aral's job. Making maintaing
frameworks is f'ing hard, and I'm glad I get the luxury of proposing ideas
947[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JesterXLSent: 06 July 2006 21:11To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm
Responder interface changes
...or you can have Commands support
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface
changes
...or you can have Commands support callbacks, and thus no
need
for state
variables, nor a need for your Commands to update those
variables.
- Original Message
mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface
changes
Agreed. Developers *have* to take responsibility for creating
application-specific classes. If your application has 10
million state
variables, then having
.
Dimitrios Jimmy Gianninas
Optimal Payments Inc.
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com on behalf of JesterXL
Sent: Mon 7/10/2006 9:41 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
...Tim gave better examples than I did. A lot
, July 10, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Good points, but I think that it can be handled in the following fashion.
The SearchView is an MXML component and it has a property called results, so
its declaration would look something like
How about creating a new class SearchResults with all the different
bindable state variables in it? This way you don't loose the advantage
of pure mvc without the clutter.
Cheers,
Ralf.
On 7/11/06, JesterXL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dude... do you know how many results we have in our app?
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 15:28, JesterXL wrote:
2. Command callbacks. Sometimes, there is a legitimate need for a View to
know when a Command is completed. In my consulting, we've added an
In which case it should use data binding, and the event result updates
something in the model.
Remember
Just what I need, 10 billion more state variables to keep track of...
- Original Message -
From: Tom Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
On Tuesday 04 July
On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:49, JesterXL wrote:
Just what I need, 10 billion more state variables to keep track of...
Point taken, but they don't all have to be flat i.e. direct properties of the
model.
You can have model.viewHelpers.* , model.thingsAboutFoo.* etc.
--
Tom Chiverton
: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:49, JesterXL wrote:
Just what I need, 10 billion more state variables to keep
track of...
Point taken, but they don't all have to be flat i.e. direct
properties of the model.
You can have
: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Agreed. Developers *have* to take responsibility for creating
application-specific classes. If your application has 10 million state
variables, then having a StateMachine / StateManager seems like a
logical refactoring to aim for. If however
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Agreed. Developers *have* to take responsibility for creating
application-specific classes. If your application has 10 million
state
variables, then having
-
From: Steven Webster
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Jesse,
I'd love for you to share the modifications you're making to
Cairngorm, and to understand the rationale behind these changes
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:51 AM
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Hi Jesse,
Let me start by saying that I acquiesce; no more viewHelpers. All
code has been rolled into the view. For component oriented
development, it makes sense.
Concerning your cogent
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:51 AM
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Hi Jesse,
Let me start by saying that I acquiesce; no more viewHelpers. All
code has been rolled into the view. For component oriented
development, it makes sense
ahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface
changes
Jesse,
I'd love for you to share the modifications you're making
to Cairngorm, and to understand the rationale behind these changes. It's
not our intention that developers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JesterXLSent: 03 July 2006 20:13To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm
Responder interface changes
Don't have Flex 2 open in front of me
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re:
Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Jesse,
I'd love for you to share the
modifications you're making to Cairngorm, and to understand the rationale
behind these changes. It's not our intention that developers would
though, by you all somehow, some way.
- Original Message -
From: Steven Webster
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface
changes
Jesse,
I'd love for you to share the modifications you're
Can someone explain why it is telling me I've implemented the
Responder methods with an incompatible signature?
public function onResult(event:ResultEvent):void
public function onFault(event:FaultEvent):void
The signatures shown in the docs are
public function onResult(event:* = null):void
you need to change these lines
public function onResult(event:ResultEvent):void
public function onFault(event:FaultEvent):voidto this...
public function onResult(event:*):void
public function onFault(event:*)voidOn 7/3/06, ben.clinkinbeard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: ben.clinkinbeard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm Responder interface changes
Ah ha. Actually, I had to change them to
public function onResult(event:* = null):void
public function onFault(event:* = null):void
so
I got arround this issue by changing the interface to read:
public function onResult(event:ResultEvent = null):void
(dont forget the ResultEvent Import)
This is much like cairngorm 2beta3 as far as I am aware (fyi: this
strange change is an issue already raised in flexcoders.)
--
I agree. These justifications do not convince me either. Thanks for
your response, JesterXL. Very helpful :)
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, JesterXL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The justifications listed here are pretty weak.
35 matches
Mail list logo
