On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 11/7/13 4:35 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by some > >> capability in the tool chain to verify a configuration, maybe by marking > >> some values as required. In production, you hopefully don't need these > >> kinds of checks. I've also floated the idea of "debug-mode" beads which > >> have more checks than production beads. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > > > >Personally, I don't like the idea of setting the bead values in CSS. It > >makes it hard to enforce these kind of things. Ideally, the absence of a > >bead that the code is looking for should generate a compile error. > > > >Another way to inject beads would be to use metadata attributes. > >Something > >along the lines of spark skins' [SkinPart(required="true")] metadata > >attribute. Would this make it easier to do the checks? > That would help with the check, but are you also proposing naming the > default value in the metadata? > > Yes, setting the default values in metadata would be great. It is more in tune with how Flex works in today.
> > > >Or more simpler, maybe we have default empty IBeads available so that > >things at least don't blow up. But I am guessing that this approach might > >only delay the blow up of the code to a later stage. > I guess I'm wondering how easy it is to screw up your config such that we > need a lot of runtime protection for this. How did you get into this > error in the first place? > > I wouldnt say it is very easy, but definitely possible. And a pain to debug. I am not sure how I got into that situation. It was probably the IFlexInfo issue I had earlier. I will check if I can repro this again. Thanks, Om
