Even if the class as marked as Bindable?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
