On 12/9/16, 10:59 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> The binding warning is legitimate. It says that there aren't change
>> events for data.foo. That could bite you some day, but is ok in this
>> particular situation. The "correct" answer is to use ValueObjects and
>> cast the data binding expression as I showed, but that can be a pain for
>> prototyping. It turns out that with FlexJS, you can suppress this
>>binding
>> warning for simple binding expressions by making a fake ValueObject with
>> the required properties and casting. The data binding code doesn't
>> type-check so you can get away with it. I just pushed a prototype of an
>> ASDoc app with a fake ValueObject and suppressed warnings via casting in
>> the SummaryRenderer.mxml and DetailRenderer.mxml
>>
>>
>I am wondering if we should create a new marker interface like
>IBindableObject and use that in the data setter/getter?
>
>Something like:
>
>public function set data(v:IBindableObject) {
>}
>
>And my value objects look like this:
>
>[Bindable]
>public class SimpleVO implements IBindableObject {
>...
>}
>
>IBindableObject could just be an empty, i.e. marker interface.
>
>Then there is no need to cast in the code. Also, maybe the compiler can
>be
>trained to not throw bindable warnings when it sees IBindableObject as the
>type?
>
>Not sure if I am missing something with this approach.
I don't think that would help. The individual properties on data still
wouldn't have any change event metadata.
-Alex
