Are you using the emulation components or the Basic components? We could probably emulate BindingUtils in the emulation components.
For Basic, there are beads you can use, like SimpleBinding, ConstantBinding and ChainBinding. I think ChainBinding is closest to BindingUtils.bindProperty. But if you don't have a chain to bind to, you can save a bit by using SimpleBinding. I don't think we have an equivalent for bindSetter. Volunteers could step up to create it or you can "fake it" by defining an actual setter property. IMO, "bindSetter" really should have been named "bindFunction". HTH, -Alex On 11/4/18, 3:27 AM, "Idylog - Nicolas Granon" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all, We make heavy use of BindingUtils bindProperty (mostly) and bindSetter (sometimes) methods. We are a bit confused : is it still possible with Royale to bind explicitly/dynamically (through code) like we did in Flex (as opposed to static binding with curly braces syntax) ? Our use-case is the following : We dynamically generate "forms" (roughly speaking) by instantiating and adding components (container components, interactive components) at runtime. As we instantiate components, we also bind them to the model with bindSetter and/or bindProperty. (in the end, of course, the outer - dynamically generated - container is added to some generic "frame" container). Are there any structural restrictions in Royale about that kind of logic ? Many thanks in advance Nicolas Granon IDYLOG Ingénierie Informatique 13 Bd Princesse Charlotte 98000 MONACO
