Hello i'm migration flex 3 to flex 4 and i have 1 warning and i try to fix it but nothing work.
The warning is: data binding will not be able to detect assignments to toplevelapplication
In flex 3 i had application.Application and now i have FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication
I have 1400 FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication and +- 150 .AS files.
I tried to use Application(FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication), mainAPP(FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication), and nothing works, The only think that clean the warning is if i add [Bindable] public var myApplication:Object = FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication; to all the .AS files but when i run the project and try to log in the application i have Action Script Errors
Error #1009: Cannot access a property or method of a null object reference.
You're right. The clean way to access the Application is via FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication.
[Bindable]
public var app:mainApp = mainApp(FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication); // fail fast to find erros
Should to the work, if that is not the case, you seem to access that instance too early. You should bootstrap the Application (and move on from there) after FlexEvent.CREATION_COMPLETE has been dispatched. Also, i suggest that if you introduce a field in your classes like
private const app:mainApp = mainApp(FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication); // fail fast to find errors
protected final get app():mainApp { return app; }
to access the field cleanly in your application and avoid too many heavy dependencies to you application.
PS: Class names, even if suffixed .mxml should start with a capital letter.
Related
To start, let me say that I have read several questions here about SingleInstance, but still cannot find a direct answer that helps me. That said, I apologize if I missed anything.
Here's my question:
I am building a Xamarin Forms app for iOS and Android. I have a single AppInitializer class in a PCL where I register all of my interface dependencies using Autofac. I then assign the Container from the builder as a static property on the app class. The problem I encounter is that while I'm registering everything with .SingleInstance(), I'm not actually getting a single instance.
Init Logic Example:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<ErrorHandler>().SingleInstance().As<IErrorHandler>();
…
builder.RegisterType<MemberViewModel>().SingleInstance().As<IMemberViewModel>();
…
AppContainer.Current = builder.Build();
I am letting Autofac handle resolving interfaces in my constructors. For example:
public MemberViewModel(ISettingsViewModel settings, IErrorHandler errorHandler, …) : base(settings, errorHandler){…}
I then use said model on a page as below:
Example page usage:
public ProfilePage()
{
InitializeComponent();
var displayModel = Model.CurrentMember;
…
}
…
**public IMemberViewModel Model =>
AppContainer.Current.Resolve<IMemberViewModel>();**
In this example I set Model.CurrentMember's properties immediately before arriving on this page. I've set breakpoints and know for a fact this is happening. However, when I resolve the instance of the model, the properties on CurrentMember are null.
Am I doing something wrong here or have I encountered a bug?
-Edit-
Made it clear that I'm using Autofac.
-Edit 2-
Adding more detail.
My implementation of the IMemberViewModel class has various properties on it, including an observable object called current member. It is declared as below:
public class MemberViewModel : ViewModelBase, IMemberViewModel
{
…
(see constructor above)
…
public MemberDisplay CurrentMember =>
m_CurrentMember ?? (m_CurrentMember = new MemberDisplay())
On the implementation of IMemberViewModel I have a method that sets the various properties on CurrentMember.
The order of operations is this:
The end user taps an image for a member. This fires a command on the (theoretically) singleton instance of the IMemberViewModel implementation. This command executes an async task that awaits an async call to the API to load the data for that member. After that data is loaded and the properties set on CurrentMember, the app navigates to the profile screen. The profile screen resolves IMemberViewModel (per above).
Expected Behavior:
The properties on CurrentMember from the resolved instance of IMemberViewModel are set to the values that have just been set from the load data method. This expectation arises from assuming that there is a single instance of IMemberViewModel.
Actual Behavior:
The CurrentMember's properties are at their default values, i.e. string.Empty, 0, null, etc.
The odd thing here is that this doesn't happen to every model. I have a message model that I am resolving in the same manner on the same screen and it seems to be fine.
This issue turned out to be caused by the way we were going about initializing everything. For posterity's sake, I will give a brief breakdown of what was happening and what I did to prevent it.
Previous App Flow:
App opens & constructor is called. This calls into the initialization routine above.
User logs in.
First instance of IMemberViewModel resolved using static container.
A message pops up asking the user for Push Notifications Permissions
When this happens, the app OnSleep is called (iOS)
After the user selects an answer, OnResume is called.
OnResume calls initialization routine
New container created.
Call to load data happens on old container, new pages reference new container.
Issue arises as described above.
Correction to the flow:
First, from what I can tell the init calls do not need to be made on resume and/or start if made in the app constructor. If the app is "killed" because other apps need the memory space, a fresh version of the app will be created on next launch (see the Android Activity Lifecycle and the iOS App Lifecycle).
Second, because I'm paranoid and because it can't hurt, in the app init routine I am now checking to determine whether the container exists and whether the interface is already registered.
public static void Init(ISetup setup)
{
if (Container != null && IsModelRegistered()) return;
RegisterDependencies(setup);
…
}
private static bool IsModelRegistered()
{
return Container.IsRegistered<IMemberViewModel>();
}
in Flex 3.2 Having troubles converting remote object result to specific object on client side in modules.
For example I have VIPSAdmin module.
it has function
private function doResult(event:ResultEvent):void {
var data_:Array = ArrayUtil.toArray(event.result);
var result:ResultDTO = data_[0] as ResultDTO;
if(!result.isError()) {
trace(result.result);
vipsAdminDTO = result.result as VIPSAdmin;
compId= vipsAdminDTO.compId; // second time dying here
}
}
Function invoked when I get data from remote objet.
First time all great,when I unload this modeule and load it again:
data_[0] as ResultDTO;
Performs fine, but
vipsAdminDTO = result.result as VIPSAdmin;
vipsAdminDTO always null!
Even when
trace(result.result);
produces [object VIPSAdmin]
What a heck I missing here!? Looks like it just cannot do
result.result as VIPSAdmin;
even when trace and debug says it is instance of VIPSAdmin
I've figured out what is the problem, problem is that when I first instantiate something in module then in main app, somehow classes are not alined even that they are identical !
So solution is to make a fake instance in application class first, then if you use that same class to make an instance in module it will work!
I do it very simple in my main application class I just added:
VIPSAdmin;
This seems to create some sort of ghost instance, which I belie will be pickup by GC later, but will build tables of instances properly! Which solved my problem.
Not sure if this is appropriate solution ! but it sure works.
I am trying to load an swf file which has button skins as images (In the library of the swf file i have given export properties which is 'TickMark') and set the skin of a flex button using StyleManager.setStyleDeclaration.
I am getting errors like 'Argument count mismatch on TickMark(). Expected 2, got 0.'
This is what i am trying to do:
private function init():void
{
loader = new Loader();
loader.contentLoaderInfo.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE,styleSWFLoaded);
loader.load(new URLRequest("styles.swf"),new LoaderContext(false,ApplicationDomain.currentDomain));
}
private function createStyle(styleName:String):void
{
var style:CSSStyleDeclaration = new CSSStyleDeclaration(styleName);
var cls:Class = ApplicationDomain.currentDomain.getDefinition(ss) as Class;
style.setStyle("upSkin",cls);
}
}
StyleManager.setStyleDeclaration(".buttonme",style,true);
}
When I apply this new style 'buttonme' to a button i am getting below error:
ArgumentError: Error #1063: Argument count mismatch on TickMark(). Expected 2, got 0.
Not sure why is this happening, and strange thing is, when I embed the same swf file it works, like below:
[Embed(source="styles.swf", symbol="Tick")]
private var GraphicClass:Class;
If I use the class GraphicClass in setStyleDeclaration, it works... but basically I want it dynamically.
Or there are other easy methods to skin (image) a flex button dynamically?
You should be able to set your skin like that dynamically. It probably has to do with your TickMark class. I'm assuming when you do style.setStyle("upSkin", cls);, that cls is TickMark and it has two required constructor args: TickMark(arg1:Object, arg2:Object). Is that true? Somewhere in the setStyle method its doing new cls().
If so, just make sure there's no constructor arguments and it should work.
If not, try following the stack trace and using breakpoints in Flex Builder if you don't already, that should help pinpoint the problem.
Best,
Lance
I believe, when you embed the export-symbol in your flex-app, it would be taking care of size and perhaps just embedding the png directly.
As your symbol-class extends BitmapData, it has to be instantiated by passing required arguments in constructor. So whatever error you get, is by design and work as expected.
You can wrap png in some other type of symbols (sprite, movieclip, etc) and export. That should work fine when used in setStyle (..,..)
I'm writing a testing Framework which is starting a GUI Application. To be able to test this GUI in the case of an SWT application I need to know it's display. In general, this display is loaded by another classloader, therefore I'm using the method findDisplay(Thread t) of the swt Display class by reflection to accomplish this task. My code looks something like this:
Thread[] threads = new Thread[10];
Thread.enumerate(threads);
Object foundObject = null;
for (Thread t : Arrays.asList(threads)){
foundObject = null;
Class<?> clazz = t.getContextClassLoader().loadClass("org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display");
final Method method = clazz.getMethod("findDisplay", Thread.class);
foundObject = method.invoke(null, new Object[] {t});
if (foundObject != null) {
System.out.println("yeah, found it!");
break;
}
}
In my opinion this should find every Object of type Display in the current thread group. However I don't get any for the texteditor RCP example although the GUI is starting up perfectly.
Any ideas what is going wrong or how I can debug this in a reasonable way?
I figured out what the main problem was: The ContextClassloader had nothing to do with the classloader who actually loaded the classes.
To resolve my problem I took care of having the classloader which loads the swt display class both in the hierarchy of the RCP program and the hierarchy of my framework. This was possible by using the java extension classloader. (I couldn't use the application classloader since my RCP application doesn't work with it as parent, I haven't figured out yet why) It was then just a matter of adding the swt.jar to the java.ext.dirs property.
If you are using Eclipse RCP then maybe you can use:
PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getDisplay()
What's the difference in terms of security between declarative and programmatic SWFLoaders? In the ff. code, loader1 throws a security exception while loader2 does not.
public someFunction(source:String):void
{
var loader1:SWFLoader = new SWFLoader();
loader1.load(source);
loader2.source = source;
}
...
<mx:SWFLoader id="loader2"/>
I don't think there is any difference in terms of security. Remember, MXML gets converted to ActionScript by the mxmlc compiler before the actual compilation commences, so a declarative SWFLoader (or any other declarative element, for that matter) is just a short-hand way of creating something instead of coding it by hand. You can use the -compiler.keep-generated-actionscript mxmlc argument to see what kind of code gets generated from your MXML.
And the reason you're not seeing a runtime error from the loader2.source = source; line in that example is that since the previous line of code invokes an error, the execution of that function stops there. Try commenting out the line where you call loader1.load(source) and you'll see the next line throw this kind of a SecurityError:
SecurityError: Error #2148: SWF file http://example.com/test.swf cannot access local resource file:///Users/username/Desktop/picture.jpg. Only local-with-filesystem and trusted local SWF files may access local resources.
at flash.display::Loader/_load()
at flash.display::Loader/load()
at mx.controls::SWFLoader/loadContent()
at mx.controls::SWFLoader/load()
at mx.controls::SWFLoader/commitProperties()
at mx.core::UIComponent/validateProperties()
at mx.managers::LayoutManager/validateProperties()
at mx.managers::LayoutManager/doPhasedInstantiation()
at Function/http://adobe.com/AS3/2006/builtin::apply()
at mx.core::UIComponent/callLaterDispatcher2()
at mx.core::UIComponent/callLaterDispatcher()