If any control (e.g. a DataGrid) is cast to UIComponent, how can you get its type at runtime?
Is this possible in Actionscript?
You can use getQualifiedClassName() to get class name by the value as a string. You can use describeType() to get the full information about class. And you can use constructor property to get class itself (to instantiate new instance by existing instance). Finally you can use is operator to compare to the limited set of classes. Less recommended usage of typeof operator which is rather obsolete.
To select the right way we need to know your particular problem.
Related
I am trying to make a replacement VB6 class for the Scripting.Dictionary class from SCRRUN.DLL. Scripting.Dictionary has (among other things) a "Keys" method that returns an array of keys, and a read/write "Item" property that returns the item associated with a key. I am confused about this, because both of them seem to be defaults for the class. That is:
For Each X In MyDict
Is equivalent to:
For Each X In MyDict.Keys
Which to me implies that "Keys" is the default operation for the class, but:
MyDict("MyKey") = "MyValue"
MsgBox MyDict("MyKey")
Is equivalent to:
MyDict.Item("MyKey") = "MyValue"
MsgBox MyDict.Item("MyKey")
Which to me implies that "Item" is the default operation for the class.
I've never before created a VB6 class that had a default operation, so upon realizing this, I thought perhaps I could define multiple default operations as long as they all have different signatures, which they do: Keys is nullary, the Item getter takes a Variant, and the Item setter takes two Variants. But this doesn't seem to be allowed: When I use "Tools/Procedure Attributes" to set the Keys function to be the default, and then I use it to set the Item property to be the default, the IDE complains that a default has already been set.
So I think I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here. What is going on in the Scripting.Dictionary object that makes it able to act as if "Keys" is the default in some contexts, but as if "Item" is the default in others? And whatever it is, can I accomplish the same thing in VB6?
OK, answering my own question: I haven't tried this yet, but I gather that "Item" should be made the default, and that I should add an entirely new function called "NewEnum" that looks something like the following (slightly modified from an example in Francesco Balena's "Programming Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0" book):
Public Function NewEnum() As IUnknown
Set NewEnum = m_Keys.[_NewEnum]
End Function
(where "m_Keys" is a Collection containing the keys), and then use Tools/Procedure Attributes to hide NewEnum and to set its ProcID to -4.
What you are observing is the difference between the default member and a collection enumerator. A COM object (including VB6 classes) can have both.
You can identify the default property of a class by looking in the Object Browser for the tiny blue globe or the words "default member of" in the description (see Contents of the Object Browser). The Object Browser will not identify an enumerator method, but if you look at the class's interface definition using OLE View or TypeLib Browser (free but registration required) it's DispId will be 0xfffffffc or -4.
In your own class, you can mark the default property by setting the Procedure ID to "(default)" in the Procedure Attributes dialog (see Making a Property or Method the Default). You already listed the steps for setting up the collection enumerator in your own answer, but you can find this listed as well in the Programmer's Guide topic Creating Your Own Collection Class: The House of Bricks.
Scripting.Dictionary has a dirty secret:
It does not handle enumeration at all, it returns big ugly Variant arrays and your For Each loops iterate over those.
This is one of the reasons why a Dictionary can actually be far less efficient than a standard VB6 Collection.
It is quite simple to do it, you write the object down to file, then you read it:
http://corlan.org/2008/09/02/storing-data-locally-in-air/
http://cookbooks.adobe.com/post_Storing_ActionScript_Objects_in_the_Encrypted_Loca-10563.html
My questions are
why when we put [RemoteClass(alias="foo.Bar")] into VO, it can be
cast automatically (otherwise the type of the deserialized object is
Generic Object with correct properties data inside it)?
Is there another way to achieve it without RemoteClass tag? (Using metadata tag is preference)
Thanks
The answer is in the page you linked to:
Note that the alias is a key that is stored with the class instance
and links the class definition with the specific object that is stored
in the ByteArray when an instance of that object is serialized. This
key can be any unique string identifying this class, but convention is
to use the fully normalized package and class name.
That's why you get a generic object if you omit the alias - the deserialization method does not know what to do with the data, unless you specify to which class the values should be mapped.
Yes, there is: registerClassAlias() does the same thing. But the metadata tag is much prettier to read ;)
I am working on a project where all of our object have a standard base class. We just added some new fields to the database for the tables behind some of the objects e.g. "DateCreated".
I would like to use reflection on the base class' insert method so that when it is called it checks the object to see if it has a property "DateCreated" and if it does sets it to DateTime.Now
The problem I'm having is typeof(this) does not work and I don't know what the type is in the base class obviously.
Is it possible to get the PropertyInfo typeof for an object from within the object without hard coding the object type or using a generic?
You can use this.GetType() in the base and receive the Type of the derived class.
I'm re-writing an MXML item renderer in pure AS. A problem I can't seem to get past is how to have each item renderer react to a change on a static property on the item renderer class. In the MXML version, I have the following binding set up on the item renderer:
instanceProperty={callInstanceFunction(ItemRenderer.staticProperty)}
What would be the equivalent way of setting this up in AS (using BindingUtils, I assume)?
UPDATE:
So I thought the following wasn't working, but it appears as if Flex is suppressing errors thrown in the instanceFunction, making it appear as if the binding itself is bad.
BindingUtils.bindSetter(instanceFunction, ItemRenderer, "staticProperty");
However, when instanceFunction is called, already initialized variables on the given instance are all null, which was the cause of the errors referenced above. Any ideas why this is?
You have 2 options that I am aware of:
Option 1
You can dig into the code that the flex compiler builds based on your MXML to see how it handles binding to static properties. There is a compiler directive called -keep-generated-actionscript that will cause generated files to stick around. Sleuthing through these can give you an idea what happens. This option will involve instantiating Binding objects and StaticPropertyWatcher objects.
Option 2
There is staticEventDispatcher object that gets added at build time to classes containing static variables see this post http://thecomcor.blogspot.com/2008/07/adobe-flex-undocumented-buildin.html. According to the post, this object only gets added based on the presence of static variables and not getter functions.
Example of Option 2
Say we have a class named MyClassContainingStaticVariable with a static variable named MyStaticVariable and another variable someobject.somearrayproperty that we want to get updated whenever MyStaticVariable changes.
Class(MyClassContainingStaticVariable).staticEventDispatcher.addEventListener(
PropertyChangeEvent.PROPERTY_CHANGE,
function(event:PropertyChangeEvent):void
{
if(event.property == "MyStaticVariable")
{
someobject.somearrayproperty = event.newValue as Array;
}
});
I think you need to respond to the "PropertyChanged" event.
If you're going to do that, use a singleton instead of static. I don't think it will work on a static. (If you have to do it that way at all, there are probably a couple ways you could reapproach this that would be better).
var instance:ItemRenderer = ItemRenderer.getInstance();
BindingUtils.bindProperty(this, "myProperty", instance, "theirProperty");
After fiddling with this for a while, I have concluded that this currently isn't possible in ActionScript, not even with bindSetter. It seems there are some MXML-only features of data bindings judging by the following excerpt from the Adobe docs (though isn't it all compiled to AS code anyways)?
You cannot include functions or array
elements in property chains in a data
binding expression defined by the
bindProperty() or bindSetter() method.
For more information on property
chains, see Working with bindable
property chains.
Source: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=databinding_7.html
You can create a HostProxy class to stand in for the funciton call. Sort of like a HostFunctionProxy class which extends from proxy, and has a getProperty("functionInvokeStringWithParameters") which will invoke the function remotely from the host, and dispatch a "change" event to trigger the binding in typical [Bindable("change")] Proxy class.
You than let the HostProxy class act as the host, and use the property to remotely trigger the function call. Of course, it'd be cooler to have some TypeHelperUtil to allow converting raw string values to serialized type values at runtime for method parameters (splitted by commas usually).
Example:
eg.
var standInHost:Object = new HostFunctionProxy(someModelClassWithMethod, "theMethodToCall(20,11)");
// With BindingUtils.....
// bind host: standInHost
// bind property: "theMethodToCall(20,11)"
Of course, you nee to create such a utlity to help support such functionality beyond the basic Flex prescription. It seems many of such (more advanced) Flex bindings are usually done at compile time, but now you have to create code to do this at runtime in a completely cross-platform Actionscript manner without relying on the Flex framework.
Does anybody know the logic behind making DataSourceSelectArguments sealed?
I've implemented a custom DataSource (and related classes) for some custom business objects and custom WebControls. When thinking in filters (like in a grid) I discovered that the DataSourceSelectArguments is sealed. Surely, I'm missing something. (Maybe the logic is related to the fact that is nonsense to ask the DB again, just for filtering?, just a guess.)
Sorry for the delay, I was on holydays. :)
The problem is that a DataBoundControl such as ListView has a SortExpression property, but not a FilterExpression. It is fine to implement a sortable grid/list with a ListView by means of a IButtonControl WebControl that fires a PostBack and a Command event. Then you use the SortExpression or the Sort method and pass a sort expression that will fill the DataSourceSelectArguments.SortExpression and pass it to the DataSource which can construct the apropiate SQL statement (in my case) to retrieve the Data from the DB. This allows for separation between the Data and the WebControl that displays it, IMHO.
Following this pattern I was about to implement a filter by filling an extra parameter object in my DataSourceSelectArguments with the requested filter and I will have called Sort, which would have passed this arguments object to the DataSource, where I would have constructed the appropiate select clause.
I've finally solve it by "coding" the filter information in the SortExpression, but I find it ugly (for the name, in the first place: sort != filter), and I was wondering if there's a more appropiate way of doing this or if I'm missing something that is more subtle.
Edit:
Maybe a better approach would be to override ListView's PerformSelect method and ask my own implementation of the DataSourceView if it can filter, then call a special ExecuteSelect method that accepts a special DataSourceSelectArguments with a filter object. Taking care not to do anything that will break when someone use the custom ListView with a non-enhanced DataSourceView, of course.
My guess is because the class is a dumb data transfer object merely used to pass arguments to a method.
This class itself doesn't have any operations defined on it, thus what sort of polymorphism would you expect? For example, the existing methods will only know about the properties of this class, which are all settable, so there's no need to override the properties. If you added new properties, they would get ignored.
For your own method, can you create your own Arguments class that just happens to have all the same properties?