Despite if it is good practice or not, I read here that you can have package variables (or constants), so I tried this:
// globals.as
package global
{
public const someConst:String = 'theValueOfTheConst';
public var someVar:String = 'theValueOfTheVar';
}
// SomeClass.as
package pack.to.the.class
{
// ...
import global.*;
// ...
// ...
public function aFunction():void
{
trace(someConst);
trace(someVar);
}
// ...
}
And all I have is an Compile-time Error that says "Definition of global:someConst has not been found" (the same for someVar)
I'm using Flex and I see this in Problems. So, is this possible? Can I have package variables (or constants) without using a Class?
Thanks!
PS: The package names, the variables names and function names are all an example, I use other names when I tested.
The answer is quite simple. You may just have one definition in your file. Split them into two files and it works.
And your file has to be named exactly like the variable. So in your example, this would work:
//someConst.as
package global
{
public const someConst:String = 'theValueOfTheConst';
}
//someVar.as
package global
{
public var someVar:String = 'theValueOfTheVar';
}
Each "compilation unit" (fancy term for *.as file) may have only one visible definition. You can also not put two classes into the same file. However you may have as many anonymous definitions as you want.
if you change
public const someConst:String = 'theValueOfTheConst';
to
public static const someConst:String = 'theValueOfTheConst';
then it works for me. YMMV.
I severely doubt it... and if you could I will suspect it's more effort than simply making a global class.
For what it's worth, I tried testing it out myself and couldn't get it to work either, even when the variables and the references to them were in the same package.
Certainly possible, but discouraged. In your source/root (main source folder in the compiler settings) put your global class:
package
{
public const someConst:String = 'theValueOfTheConst';
}
(oh... and I'm using flex to test, but she worked -- no need to import to get someConst in a different package locale)
Related
here is the code of an alloy controller written in two different ways. Although the both work the same, Which one might be best practice?
example 1 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
$.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
example 2 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
exports.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
Titanium is based on the CommonJS framework. The exports variable is a special variable used typically to expose a public API in a class object. So when you want to expose a method of doSomething() on the MyModule.js class you would use the exports variable like this:
exports.doSomething() = function(args) {
//Some really cool method here
};
Then reference that class using
var myModule = require('MyModule');
myModule.doSomething();
However when referencing a view object the typical way to reference the is using the $. shortcut. You can see they prefer that method in the official documentation.
http://docs.appcelerator.com/platform/latest/#!/guide/Alloy_XML_Markup
The $ variable holds a reference to your controller instance. It also contains some references to all indexed views (understand, views for which you supplied an index in you xml markup).
Both ways are strictly equivalent as, during the compilation, Alloy will merge the content of the exports with your controller referenced in $. Adding them directly to the instance won't change a thing.
Neverthless, developers are used to see the public API as the set of functions exported via the special variable exports; Thus, I will recommend to keep using it in a clean and clear way (for instance, defining your functions in your module scope, and only expose them at the end or beginning of your controller).
function myFunction1 () { }
function myFunction2 () { }
function myFunction3 () { }
exports.myFunction1 = myFunction1;
exports.myFunction3 = myFunction3;
Thereby, your API is quite clear for people diving into your source code. (A readMe file is also highly recommended :) ).
Suppose I have the following simple wrapper of a NativeClassInstance.
public ref class Wrapper
{
private:
NativeClass *_wrapped;
public:
Renderer()
{
_wrapped = new NativeClass();
}
~Renderer()
{
delete _wrapped;
}
operator NativeClass*()
{
return _wrapped;
}
}
Now, I want to create an instance of Wrapper from C# with Wrapper wrapper = new Wrapper() and use it in another native functionalities wrapper that resides in another assembly with Helper.Foo(wrapper) (nothing strange having other functionalities not directly related to the wrapped classes in another assembly, IMO):
// Utilities is in another Assembly
public ref class Helper
{
public:
static Foo(Wrapper ^wrapper)
{
// Do something in native code with wrapper->_wrapped
}
}
The results with the implicit user conversion is:
candidate function(s) not accessible
If I make _wrapped public it is:
cannot access private member declared in class ...
Now, I've learnt that native type visibility is private outside of the assembly. So, how I'm supposed to use the wrapped entity in native code outside the assembly it's defined? I've read of make_public but you can't use with template types so it seems very limiting in the general case. Am I missing something? Is there a more correct solution?
I haven't been able to successfully expose native types using make_public, however a solution I have used is to put NativeClass in its own native DLL and then a) reference the native DLL from both assemblies; and b) pass the pointer to the native class around as an IntPtr.
Under the above scenario, instead of having an operator NativeClass* you might use a property such as
property IntPtr WrappedObject {
IntPtr get() { return IntPtr(_wrapped); }
}
You then retrieve NativeObject in you helper assembly by
static void Foo(Wrapper ^wrapper)
{
NativeObject *_wrapped
= static_cast<NativeObject*>(wrapper->WrappedObject.ToPointer());
// ... do something ...
}
If you use make_public, your solution of making _wrapped public should work (it would obviously be best to make a public accessor instead). Regarding your comment "I've read of make_public but you can't use with template types so it seems very limiting in the general case." I agree--read here for the workaround I used:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vclanguage/thread/b43cca63-b0bf-451e-b8fe-74e9c618b8c4/
More related info:
Best workaround for compiler error C2158: make_public does not support native template types
Good luck!
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.
I am using a Cairngorm MVC architecture for my current project.
I have several commands which use the same type of function that returns a value. I would like to have this function in one place, and reuse it, rather than duplicate the code in each command. What is the best way to do this?
Create a static class or static method in one of your Cairngorm classes.
class MyStatic
{
public static function myFunction(value:String):String
{
return "Returning " + value;
}
}
Then where you want to use your function:
import MyStatic;
var str:String = MyStatic.myFunction("test");
Another option is to create a top level function (a la "trace"). Check out this post I wrote here.
You have lots of options here -- publicly defined functions in your model or controller, such as:
var mySharedFunction:Function = function():void
{
trace("foo");
}
... static methods on new or existing classes, etc. Best practice probably depends on what the function needs to do, though. Can you elaborate?
Create an abstract base class for your commands and add your function in the protected scope. If you need to reuse it anywhere else, refactor it into a public static method on a utility class.
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.