For me all is perfect, the syntax is clearly and simple. My question
of several variable is not a needn is just a question ^^
thx for all Greg and waiting implementation :)
Le 27/08/2010 21:08, Greg Brown a écrit :
Right. But it doesn't seem like it would be a common case. From your earlier
email, it didn't sound like you would need that. Also, the current approach is
consistent with how bind mappings are implemented elsewhere in the framework,
which is nice.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Olivier Dutrieux wrote:
If I unterstand your answer my question about several variables is not to easy
to implement ?
Le 27/08/2010 20:35, Greg Brown a écrit :
Correct, that's not supported right now. Didn't seem like you would need it for
your use case and it would have complicated the implementation.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Olivier Dutrieux wrote:
arfff I don't unterstand that it's not implement right now :-S
Le 27/08/2010 19:28, Greg Brown a écrit :
Thank you - please let me know how it goes. :-)
On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Olivier Dutrieux wrote:
I will test it now :)
Le 27/08/2010 17:15, Greg Brown a écrit :
Hi all,
I have just checked in support for this feature. The Property Binding tutorial
includes a demonstration:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pivot/trunk/tutorials/src/org/apache/pivot/tutorials/databinding/property_binding.bxml
For example:
function toUpperCase(value) {
return value.toUpperCase();
}
<TextInput bxml:id="textInput" Form.label="Text Input"/>
<Label Form.label="Uppercase Text" text="${toUpperCase:textInput.text}"/>
There is also an example of creating a mapping in Java:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pivot/trunk/tutorials/src/org/apache/pivot/tutorials/databinding/PropertyBinding.java
You may notice that I chose to use the "foo:bar" syntax to specify a mapping function
rather than "foo(bar)". I did this for the following reasons:
1) It is easier to parse.
2) It doesn't look like a function, whereas "foo(bar)" does. The user might incorrectly
assume that "foo(bar)" is an inline function declaration, which it is not (it is never
actually evaluated by the script engine - the function referred to by this expression is what is
actually evaluated).
3) It may look like a JavaScript function, but it doesn't look like a Groovy
closure, for example. If Groovy is being used as the page language, this could
be confusing.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks!
Greg
On Aug 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Greg Brown wrote:
--
Olivier Dutrieux
Études et Projets Informatiques (Tél : 31 62)
--
Olivier Dutrieux
Études et Projets Informatiques (Tél : 31 62)
--
Olivier Dutrieux
Études et Projets Informatiques (Tél : 31 62)
