I not sure how complete the MXML support in the falcon compiler so I
checked the old mxmlc compiler. The old mxmlc validates with specialized
if/else statements based on parent and child types for elements that do not
provide [DefaultProperty]. For example, here is a code snippet from
ComponentBuilder.ComponentChildNodeHandler.nestedDeclaration():
// Halo navigators (Accordion, TagNavigator, and
// ViewStack) only support container based children.
if (checkHaloNavigatorRequirements &&
standardDefs.isHaloNavigator(parentType) &&
!standardDefs.isNavigatorContent(childType) &&
!(child instanceof ReparentNode))
{
log(child, new
HaloNavigatorsRequireHaloContainerChildren());
}
See the whole method for all the checks.
Also see the checks in DocumentChildNodeHandler.nestedDeclarations() as
well.
Hope this helps,
-Darrell
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Héctor A <neverbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much for the reply Darrell, your help would be highly
> appreciated. I have some doubts, and I guess some more will be popping up,
> but if I can avoid having to find out about them the less time it will take
> to have a better IDE.
>
> I've seen ViewNavigatorApplication and ViewNavigator has
> [DefaultProperty("navigationStack")] , which is a private property of type
> NavigationStack, marked with [ExcludeClass], what does that mean? right now
> it renders DefaultProperty to be null, which I suppose is the right thing
> to do.
>
> How are the possible fx: types for a node determined? is there a set of
> rules determined? after a root node, a fx:Declaration element, a component
> declaration, an ItemRenderer... is it hacked around? I guess so, but I'll
> have to think about how to handle those special cases properly.
>
> I haven't looked into Flex 3 in depth yet.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Darrell Loverin <
> darrell.love...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry I missed this thread. Using [DefaultProperty] and
>> [ArrayElementType] sounds right for Spark components but I don't see
>> [DefaultProperty] declared in mx containers and I don't remember how mx
>> containers were validated. I'll investigate to see how it works this
>> weekend.
>>
>>
>> -Darrell
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Héctor A <neverbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Cc-ing Gordon and Darrell here, in case they missed this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, that would be the better source of information and the best way
>>> to make sure I implement everything as it should.
>>>
>>> I didn't mention it, but of course I added support for ArrayElementType
>>> and InstanceType metas as well, although I didn't test any case where it is
>>> used inside a SWC yet, so it may fail in that case.
>>>
>>> I'll need to come up with every example and test case possible,
>>>
>>
>>
>
