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, >>> >> >> >