I believe the warning was that the value of PURCHASED could change. The
Bindable subsystem does not know that the getter will always return the
same string literal. If other stuff could change, but didn't specify a
change event, I would hope the compiler would warn about that part of the
bindable expression.
IMO, one should never use plain [Bindable] with getters and setters. That
just wraps the getter/setter in another getter/setter with change event
detection. That adds up eventually both in code size and runtime.
Suddenly you are making two function calls instead of one to access the
underlying value.
You could use [Bindable("__NoChangeEvent__")] if you know a value doesn't
change but isn't a const. You probably don't want to add listeners for
when PURCHASED changes, just when the current location manager changes.
Of course, I could be wrong.
-Alex
On 6/19/17, 11:28 PM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It looks like changing the definitions of the interface and the class to
>
> [Bindable]function get PURCHASED():String;
>and
> [Bindable]public function get PURCHASED():String {
> return
>"PURCHASED"; }
>
>worked.
>
>So is it a bug that declaring the class and the interface as bindable was
>not enough?
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-How-Binding-works-tp57096p624
>85.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdeee45fa75c74c1828da08d4b7a7f7f2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
>38794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636335379433525746&sdata=uK6hxHRAC%2BkVi8%2B
>igjlqgOKAypeFlS1EwLbZ6qNniDk%3D&reserved=0
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
