So I need to return the location or fname or what ever.... I would like to do this just by changing the pointer variable. I'm just comming from php to flex so I don't know what I'm doing -=) How can I do this?
public var myProfile:Object={
fname:"Deyon",
lname:"Smith",
age:"31",
loc:"New York"};
public var pointer:String="loc";
public function getProfileinfo():void{
trace(myProfile.pointer);
}
Thank you!
Change the following code:
function getProfileinfo(pointer:String):void{
trace(myProfile[pointer]);
}
Plus, you should put this code into a Class.
Related
Can we put [Bindable] on functions/methods? I know that bindable is used to change the value of the source property to destination property. But not sure if we can use that for methods. Can you guys give me reason why we cannot put/ if we can then what will be the outcome?
Can you guys give me reason why we cannot put/ if we can then what
will be the outcome?
You can use Bindable on get/set properties; which are implemented as methods. Sort of like this:
private var _myValue : Boolean;
[Bindable(event='myValueChanged']
public function get myValue():Boolean{
return _myValue;
}
public function set myValue(value:Boolean):void{
_myValue = value;
dispatchEvent(new Event('myValueChanged'));
}
[Disclaimer I wrote this code in the browser]
The purpose of Binding is to 'magically' link two properties together. So, when the source property changes, the destination property also changes.
How are you expecting to apply this concept to a function?
I refer to this site link text
Using the wrong event name in the
[Bindable] tag can cause your
application to not bind your property,
and you will not even know why. When
you use the [Bindable] tag with a
custom name, the example below looks
like a good idea:
public static const EVENT_CHANGED_CONST:String = "eventChangedConst";
private var _number:Number = 0;
[Bindable(event=EVENT_CHANGED_CONST)]
public function get number():Number
{
return _number;
}
public function set number(value:Number) : void
{
_number = value;
dispatchEvent(new Event(EVENT_CHANGED_CONST));
}
The code above assigns a static
property to the event name, and then
uses the same assignment to dispatch
the event. However, when the value
changes, the binding does not appear
to work. The reason is that the event
name will be EVENT_CHANGED_CONST and
not the value of the variable.
The code should have been written as
follows:
public static const EVENT_CHANGED_CONST:String = "eventChangedConst";
private var _number:Number = 0;
[Bindable(event="eventChangedConst")]
public function get number():Number
{
return _number;
}
public function set number(value:Number) : void
{
_number = value;
dispatchEvent(new Event(EVENT_CHANGED_CONST));
}
I agree, the wrong example does look like a good idea and I would do it that way because I think it's the right way and avoids the possibility of a typing error. Why is the name of the constant used instead of it's value? Surely this can't be right?
I appreciate your insights
Because the standard Flex compiler isn't that clever at times... and I feel your pain! I've complained about this exact problem more than a few times.
If I remember correctly, it's because the compiler does multiple passes. One of the early passes changes the Metadata into AS code. At this point in the compiler it hasn't parsed the rest of the AS code, so its not capable of parsing Constants or references to static variables in other files.
The only thing I can suggest is sign up to the Adobe JIRA, vote for the bug, and hope that the compiler fixes in 4.5 bring some relief.
I finished NerdDinner tutorial and now I'm playing a bit with project.
Index page shows all upcoming dinners:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var dinners = dinnerRepository.FindUpComingDinners().ToList();
return View(dinners);
}
In DinnerRepository class I have method FindAllDinners and I would like to add to above Index method number of all dinners, something like this:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var dinners = dinnerRepository.FindUpComingDinners().ToList();
var numberOfAllDinners = dinnerRepository.FindAllDinners().Count();
return View(dinners, numberOfAllDinners);
}
Of course, this doesn't work. As I'm pretty new to OOP I would need help with this one.
Thanks,
Ile
Create view model:
public class DinnerViewModel
{
public List<Dinner> Dinners { get; set; }
public int NumberOfAllDinners { get; set; }
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var dinners = dinnerRepository.FindUpComingDinners().ToList();
var numberOfAllDinners = dinnerRepository.FindAllDinners().Count();
return View(new DinnerViewModel { Dinners = dinners, NumberOfAllDinners = numberOfAllDinners } );
}
You need to create a "wrapper" object that contains the objects you wish to pass as public properties of it. For instance, create an object called DinnerViewModel and give it two properties and set these with two properties, one a List called Dinners and one an int called DinnerCount. Then pass the DinnerViewModel to the view and you can then access Model.Dinners and Model.DinnerCount
In your case I would prefer the solution mentioned by LukLed.
In general you could of course also transfer multiple values from your controller to your view using ViewData:
ViewData["dinners"] = dinners;
ViewData["numberOfAllDinners"] = 150;
...
For more information also take a look at this link.
Just simply use dinners.Count property instead.
Remember, you start off using the ViewData inherts in you .aspx filesand returning the same in you return statements. Because of that, I figure that it was an issue with the Inherits attribute on the top of the ASP.NET files. But, if you are getting the error when trying to create or edit a new Dinner when you are on the 'Upcoming Dinners' page (generated from the Details.aspx and the LINQ file that gets all Dinners that are after todays date), go into your 'Controllers' directory, specifically the DinnerController.cs. Then look at the Edit and or Create methods. the answer lies right here. If you put breakpoints on these methods, you should be able to figure it out. If not, continue reading:
Look where it fails, the 'return...' line. Maybe I am the only person who forgot to change this, but my error is the same as people are getting in this page and this os how I fixed it.....the 'return(dinner)' line, in Create and Edit (and any others that you are having issues with), they are using the NerDinner.Model.Dinner / ViewData method. However, if you change it to the ViewModel return method instead, it should fix it, For example: 'return(new DinnerFormViewModel(dinner));', it should work for you. I hope this helps, as it was what my issue was. Just a simple overlook.
I'm using Python+PyAMF to talk back and forth with Flex clients, but I've run into a problem with the psudo-Enum-Singletons I'm using:
class Type {
public static const EMPTY:Type = new Type("empty");
public static const FULL:Type = new Type("full");
...
}
When I'm using locally created instances, everything is peachy:
if (someInstance.type == Type.EMPTY) { /* do things */ }
But, if 'someInstance' has come from the Python code, it's instance of 'type' obviously won't be either Type.EMPTY or Type.FULL.
So, what's the best way to make my code work?
Is there some way I can control AMF's deserialization, so when it loads a remote Type, the correct transformation will be called? Or should I just bite the bullet and compare Types using something other than ==? Or could I somehow trick the == type cohesion into doing what I want?
Edit: Alternately, does Flex's remoting suite provide any hooks which run after an instance has been deserialized, so I could perform a conversion then?
Random thought: Maybe you could create a member function on Type that will return the canonical version that matches it?
Something like:
class Type {
public static const EMPTY:Type = new Type("empty");
public static const FULL:Type = new Type("full");
...
// I'm assuming this is where that string passed
// in to the constructor goes, and that it's unique.
private var _typeName:String;
public function get canonical():Type {
switch(this._typeName) {
case "empty": return EMPTY;
case "full": return FULL;
/*...*/
}
}
}
As long as you know which values come from python you would just convert them initially:
var fromPython:Type = /*...*/
var t:Type = fromPython.canonical;
then use t after that.
If you can't tell when things come from python and when they're from AS3 then it would get pretty messy, but if you have an isolation layer between the AS and python code you could just make sure you do the conversion there.
It's not as clean as if you could control the deserialization, but as long as you've got a good isolation layer it should work.
What I'd like to do is something like the following:
FooClass.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:FooClass = new FooClass();
foo.method();
Which is to say, I'd like to extend a generated class with a single method, not via inheritance but via the prototype.
The class is generated from a WSDL, it's not a dynamic class, and I don't want to touch the generated code because it will be overwritten anyway.
Long story short, I'd like to have the moral equivalent of C# 3:s Extension Methods for AS3.
Edit: I accepted aib's answer, because it fits what I was asking best -- although upon further reflection it doesn't really solve my problem, but that's my fault for asking the wrong question. :) Also, upmods for the good suggestions.
Yes, such a thing is possible.
In fact, your example is very close to the solution.
Try
foo["method"]();
instead of
foo.method();
#Theo: How would you explain the following working in 3.0.0.477 with the default flex-config.xml (<strict>true</strict>) and even a -compiler.strict parameter passed to mxmlc?
Foo.as:
package
{
public class Foo
{
public var foo:String;
public function Foo()
{
foo = "foo!";
}
}
}
footest.as:
package
{
import flash.display.Sprite;
public class footest extends Sprite
{
public function footest()
{
Foo.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:Foo = new Foo();
trace(foo["method"]());
}
}
}
Note that the OP said inheritance was unacceptable, as was modifying the generated code. (If that weren't the case, adding "dynamic" to the class definition would probably be the easiest solution.)
Depending on how many methods your class has, this may work:
Actual Class:
public class SampleClass
{
public function SampleClass()
{
}
public function method1():void {
Alert.show("Hi");
}
Quick Wrapper:
var actualClass:SampleClass = new SampleClass();
var QuickWrapper:Object = {
ref: actualClass,
method1: function():void {
this.ref.method1();
},
method2: function():void {
Alert.show("Hello!");
}
};
QuickWrapper.method1();
QuickWrapper.method2();
#aib is unfortunately incorrect. Assuming strict mode (the default compiler mode) it is not possible to modify the prototype of non-dynamic class types in ActionScript 3. I'm not even sure that it's possible in non-strict mode.
Is wrapping an option? Basically you create a class that takes one of the objects you get from the web service and just forwards all method calls to that, but also has methods of its own:
public class FooWrapper extends Foo {
private var wrappedFoo : Foo;
public function FooWrapper( foo : Foo ) {
wrappedFoo = foo;
}
override public function methodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.methodFromFoo();
}
override public function anotherMethodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.anotherMethodFromFoo();
}
public function newMethodNotOnFoo( ) : String {
return "Hello world!"
}
}
When you want to work with a Foo, but also have the extra method you need you wrap the Foo instance in a FooWrapper and work with that object instead.
It's not the most convenient solution, there's a lot of typing and if the generated code changes you have to change the FooWrapper class by hand, but unless you can modify the generated code either to include the method you want or to make the class dynamic I don't see how it can be done.
Another solution is to add a step to your build process that modifies the source of the generated classes. I assume that you already have a step that generates the code from a WSDL, so what you could do is to add a step after that that inserts the methods you need.
Monkey patching is an (inelegant) option.
For example, suppose you don't like the fact that Flex 3 SpriteAsset.as returns a default border metrics of [7,7,7,7] (unlike flex 2). To fix this, you can:
Create a copy of SpriteAsset.as and add it to your project at /mx/core/SpriteAsset.as
Edit your local copy to fix any problems you find
Run your ap
Google "flex monkey patch" for more examples and instructions.