Just trying to understand things -- I was considering surfacing an abbreviated form of the RemoteObject attribute set to simplify life for the developer, and trying to validate that there was a simple mapping between mx: tags and corresponding classes and/or constructors (which there is not).
The suggestion of using a separate file to contain the remote object interfaces is a reasonable one; I may have a small set of them, with each "module" having one of it's own, but that's an implementation detail. Thanks Matt! --- In [email protected], Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right now the Flex RemoteObject code goes through a pretty complex > code-generation so it's really meant to be created in just MXML for the > moment. The idea has been that a separate MXML file can contain your > services and be configured to meet the needs of large applications, thus > removing the need for dynamic creation of services based on property files > or the like. Is there a situation that isn't being met in your case?
