I want to create a complete (and real) 2-dimensional array.
In order to use a maximum of Adobe code, I want to use ListCollectionView which can manage sort and filters. But to use a second dimension, I need to override getProperty method, like following code.
package
{
import flash.utils.flash_proxy;
import mx.collections.ListCollectionView;
public class SubClass extends ListCollectionView /* extends Proxy */
{
override flash_proxy function getProperty(name : *) : *
{
...
}
override flash_proxy function setProperty(name : *, value : *) : void
{
...
}
}
}
This code doesn't work. Flash Builder 4 said to me:
1004 Namespace was not found or is not a compile-time constant.
If anyone has a solution or a clue...
It's easy :
use namespace flash_proxy;
Related
I'm making a mod, and I am getting an error(no duh) and I have tried searching it up but I want an answer specific to my problem because I am not very good at this. I am getting this error in my block class.
Implicit super constructor Block() is undefined for default constructor. Must define an explicit constructor
and I don't know how to fix it. Please Help its for a project.
block class:
package GDMCrocknrollkid.fandomcraft;
import net.minecraft.block.Block;
import net.minecraft.block.material.Material;
public class BlockCbBlock extends Block {
protected BlockCbBlock(Material material) {
super(material);
}
}
mod class:
package GDMCrocknrollkid.fandomcraft;
import net.minecraft.block.Block;
import net.minecraft.item.Item;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.Mod;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.Mod.EventHandler;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.event.FMLInitializationEvent;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.event.FMLPostInitializationEvent;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.event.FMLPreInitializationEvent;
import cpw.mods.fml.common.registry.GameRegistry;
#Mod(modid = "fc", name = "Fandomcraft", version = "1.0")
public class fandomcraft {
public static Item itemCbIngot;
public static Block blockCbBlock;
#EventHandler
public void preInit(FMLPreInitializationEvent event){
//Item/Block initialization and registering
//Config Handling
itemCbIngot = new ItemCbIngot().setUnlocalizedName("ItemCbIngot").setTextureName("fc:itemCbIngot"); //item.itemCbIngot.name
blockCbBlock = new BlockCbBlock(Material.iron);
GameRegistry.registerItem(itemCbIngot, itemCbIngot.getUnlocalizedName().substring(5));
}
#EventHandler
public void init(FMLInitializationEvent event){
//Proxy, TileEntity, entity, GUI and Packet Registering
}
#EventHandler
public void postInit(FMLPostInitializationEvent event) {
}
}
This error pertains to all of java, not just minecraft forge. Check this for some more reference. There are a couple possible reasons for this error. It is most likely 1, but 2 and 3 can be a contributing factor to the error.
Your BlockCbBlock Class declares a constructor that is not the default, no-argument constructor that the compiler would otherwise provide (that is, if the Block class doesn't have a constructor) and, if in fact the Block class is using the default constructor, then you can't call super() on the arguements because the Block class uses a constructor with no arguments. Because of this, if you wanted to modify the Block constructor, it would be safier and easier to create a custom construcotr inside of the BlockCbBlock class itself.
You are trying to inherit the constructor of Block, but you have declared it as protected, when the constructor in your class should be public to match the inherited .
If you're using Eclipse, it can give this error when you have your project setup incorrectly (system configuration mismatch)
Probably not directly realted to this specific error, but a possible cause of other errors in the near future; you are using the annotation #EventHandler, but you have not actually declared the forge event handler.
You don't actually register the block for some reason. Even if you're using the block as a recipe item, you still need to register it
To fix potential problems 1, 2, and 4, try this (obtained from here):
package GDMCrocknrollkid.fandomcraft;
import net.minecraft.block.Block;
import net.minecraft.block.material.Material;
private final String name = "BlockCbBlock";
public class BlockCbBlock extends Block {
public BlockCbBlock() {
super(Material.iron);
GameRegistry.registerBlock(this, name);
setUnlocalizedName(Reference.MODID + "_" + name);
setCreativeTab(CreativeTabs.tabBlock);
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
This way, you'll declare its UnlocalizedName, Material, and CreativeTab ahead of time. This method might be unnecessary, but its a good precaution to help prevent the error. Now, all you have to do is declare it like this:
//You need to make your own EventHandler class. Search online for that.
FCEventHandler handler = new FCEventHandler();
#EventHandler
public void preInit(FMLPreInitializationEvent event){
//Config Handling
//event handler registry
FMLCommonHandler.instance().bus().register(handler);
MinecraftForge.EVENT_BUS.register(handler);
//the same thing can be similarly done with this if you wish
itemCbIngot = new ItemCbIngot().setUnlocalizedName("ItemCbIngot").setTextureName("fc:itemCbIngot");
blockCbBlock = new BlockCbBlock();
GameRegistry.registerItem(itemCbIngot, itemCbIngot.getUnlocalizedName().substring(5));
}
I've a simple Qt Question. I want that automatically generated UIC files are derived from a custom interface class like in:
Intention
class MyUiInterface {
public:
virtual void setupUi(QWidget* w) = 0;
virtual void retranslateUi(QWidget*w) = 0;
};
Generated UIC file should look like:
class Ui_MyWidget {
public:
void setupUi(QWidget* w) {
...
}
void retranslateUi(QWidget* w) {
...
}
};
namespace Ui {
class MyWidget : public MyUiInterface , public Ui_MyWidget {};
}
Why?
Every Ui::Class would then implement MyUiInterface. In each class that derives from Ui::Class (see The Multiple Inheritance Approach) I would be able to call setupUi and retranslateUi which makes sense if the class that derives from UI::Class class is a base class either. I want every widget to be derived from my abstrcat base class MyWidgetBase. Consider following:
class MyWidgetBase abstract : public QWidget, protected MyUiInterface {
protected:
void changeEvent(QEvent *e) {
QWidget::changeEvent(e);
if (e->type() == QEvent::LanguageChange) {
retranslateUi(this); // Still abstract here
}
}
};
class MyWidget : public MyWidgetBase : public Ui::MyWidget {
};
The effect is, every time MyWidget::changeEvent() is callled, retranslateUi of that specific class is called. Otherwise changeEvent had to be reimplemented in each class. This would be a bit against "code reuse" concept.
I think Qt UIC is not able to handle this situation isn't it? Is there a similar way to solve this problem?
Unfortunately, reading XML Schema for ui files is telling us that this is not possible to automate using uic compiler.
However, it is unclear to me why you would want to implement that automatically - even if the Uic somehow manages to implement your interface, you will still need to add bodies of the functions by hand, editing generated .h file, as I am sure that there is no way to include custom code in xml file which will translate as C++ code.
Why you just don't reimplement setupUi and retranslateUi in your MyWidget class? Every Ui class will have one of these classes, so you can implement this on this level, instead of base class. It is possible that I am missing something, but I see this as an appropriate way to do this.
class MyWidget : public MyWidgetBase, public Ui::MyWidget {
public:
void setupUi(QWidget* w) {
...
}
void retranslateUi(QWidget* w) {
...
}
};
With this approach, you don't need to reimplement changeEvent() in any of your custom widgets, and changeEvent will still call the appropriate retranslateUi().
I'm wondering (based on scoping rules) how I might do the following:
I want to draw to a sprite that exists on the main stage in which I have a class instantiated.
So something like
public function MyClass(reference:String){
this.reference = reference;
}
public function drawToOutsideSprite(){
this.parent.getChildByName(this.reference).addChild(someLoaderName);
}
Would I use super() in this case, or what's the usual methodology?
Thanks,
jml
There are a few ways to do this. I'm assuming your MyClass extends Sprite.
package
{
import flash.display.DisplayObject;
import flash.display.DisplayObjectContainer;
import flash.display.Sprite;
/**
* MyClass
*/
public class MyClass extends Sprite
{
public var referenceA:String;
public var referenceB:Sprite;
public function get referenceA_way2():Sprite
{
return this.parent.getChildByName(referenceA);
}
/**
* MyClass Constructor
*/
public function MyClass(referenceA:String = null, referenceB:Sprite = null)
{
super();
this.referenceA = referenceA;
this.referenceB = referenceB;
}
public function drawToOutsideSpriteA(child:DisplayObject):void
{
// referenceA
this.parent.getChildByName(this.referenceA).addChild(child);
// or
referenceA_way2.addChild(child);
}
public function drawToOutsideSpriteB(child:DisplayObject):void
{
// referenceB
referenceB.addChild(child);
}
public function drawToOutsideSpriteC(referenceC:String, child:DisplayObject):void
{
this.parent.getChildByName(referenceC).addChild(child);
}
// Do this:
// it allows you to abstract out the logic of getting the main sprite
// into some util class, so you could reuse that functionality elsewhere,
// and so your code is cleaner.
public function drawToOutsideSpriteD(child:DisplayObject):void
{
StageUtil.getMainSprite().addChild(child);
}
}
}
package
{
import flash.display.DisplayObject;
import flash.display.DisplayObjectContainer;
import flash.display.Sprite;
/**
* MyClass
*/
public class StageUtil
{
private static var root:Stage;
/**
* Called when app first starts
*/
public static function initialize(stage:Stage):void
{
root = stage;
}
public static function getMainSprite():DisplayObjectContainer
{
return root; // or something more complex,
// like a recursive function to getSpriteByName
}
public static function addToStage(child:DisplayObject):DisplayObject
{
return getMainSprite().addChild(child);
}
}
}
In general I would abstract out the logic for getting the "main" sprite into some util/manager class, because you don't want to hardcode that into your MyClass, as you might need it in other places, and you might want to customize it later on. It sounds like your just asking what's the best way to reference sprites outside of the scope of the MyClass, so I say just put it into the Util, assuming it has good reason for being their (like FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication in Flex, so you can easily access the application).
I don't recommend passing in id's or name's into the constructor and doing it that way, I don't really recommend constructor arguments at all. I would just pass those into a method if you needed to, or have it built into the class itself, or the Util.
To clear up the scoping question a little... You normally don't want to draw to sprites outside the scope of the class you are in, unless they have some special functionality that will be referenced by multiple classes with totally different scopes. This is because things would start not making sense, who's being added to who. But some good examples on when to do thatinclude:
Buttons with ToolTips: Tooltips are added to the root because they appear on top of everything, but a Button could be 20 children deep, so you'd have in the Button subclass, perhaps, addToolTip(child).
PopUps: You might want to add a popup from within MyClass, but it's really being added to the stage. In flex this is like PopUpManager.addPopUp(child), just like the sample StageUtil.getMainSprite().addChild(child). You could even wrap that method so it's like the one in the class above, addToStage.
Transform/Drawing Stage: If you have some global painting stage, or place where you scale/resize things, you might want to be able to add/remove graphics from that from any class.
The super() method isn't useful in this scenario. The only time you really use super() is if you have overridden a method, and want to access the super-classes implementation. Something like this (assuming you're extending Sprite):
override public function addChild(child:DisplayObject):DisplayObject
{
if (child is MyDrawingSprite)
return StageUtil.addToStage(child); // add to main stage
else
return super.addChild(child); // add directly to this class
}
Otherwise, try to stick to just adding children directly to the "MyClass".
Hope that helps.
If I have 2 classes and the first extends the second, how can the second class call a static function from the first?
package p1 {
class a {
static function a1() {
//do soemthing
}
}
class b extends a {
static function b1() {
//do something else
}
}
}
a.a1(); // this works
b.a1(); // this doesn't work
b.b1(); //this works
When "B extends A" - this actually is not the same as "class B has all methods and properties of A". Not class, but object of class B implements all properties and methods, defined in class A. When you call a static method or property - you deal with classes but not objects (it looks very similar to namespaces usage).
ADDED:
The only way solve your task is to override a1(args) in class B and to call super.a1(args) inside... 1 string of code. But it seems to me, that you have a software architect problem if it's not possible to avoid such kind of usage.
Use super to call the parent method.
super.b1();
EDIT: Ok, looking at what you wrote, I think you need to set the scope of a1 to be public or protected.
ActionScript 3 / Flex 3 - Adding custom events to a class
Say I have the following Event:
import flash.events.Event;
public class SomeEvent extends Event
{
public static const EVENT_ACTION:String = "eventAction";
public function SomeEvent(type:String) {
super(type);
}
override public function clone():Event {
return new SomeEvent(this.type);
}
}
... and the following Class:
public class SomeClass extends EventDispatcher
{
public function someFunction():void
{
dispatchEvent(new SomeEvent("eventAction"));
}
}
What is the best way to show that 'SomeClass' throws 'SomeEvent'? The only way I have found is to decorate 'SomeClass' with the [Event] attribute, as follows:
[Event (name="eventAction", type="SomeEvent")]
This allows me to instantiate the class and add an event listener by doing this:
var someClassInstance:SomeClass = new SomeClass();
someClassInstance.addEventListener(SomeEvent.EVENT_ACTION, mycallbackmethod);
Is there a better way to do this? Putting the [Event] attribute on the class followed by some string literals just feels ... wrong. Thanks in advance for the help!
You're doing it right. Currently, the AS3 compiler allows only string literals in metadata. Constants cannot be used.
By the way, Adobe's public bug database has a feature request to allow ActionScript constants in metadata. Feel free to vote for it.
I know, I feel the same way; using the string literals does seem a bit wrong somehow. But to the best of my knowledge, from all the documentation I've seen and the talks I've attended and in reading the Flex source code, etc., it does appear that's the proper way to do it.