Hi Peeyush Tuli and ... Dear Adobe Guys, I've added a bug-report at Adobe: http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FB-26394
Hopefully the QA owner Radhakrishna Bhat is taking care of that soon. In the meantime, unfortunatelly, we will to move on with the webservice generator in FB3 :( If you have any questions concerning this issue ... please let me know! Thanks, masu On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Peeyush Tuli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If your webservice wsdl specifies a parent child relationship in the schema > for the classes in question then it is definite bug in the code generator > for flash builder. You could always generate the code in fb3 and use it in > fb4 if you are short of time. > > > ~Peeyush > http://metadesignsolutions.com/ > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Sebastian Mohr > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> Hi there once again, >> >> has anybody worked with the Webservice generator in Flash Builder 4 >> already? Is there somebody out there who knows how we could solve >> this problem? Maybe this is a bug and we should file that in a bug report >> at Adobe: http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa ? >> >> Cheers, >> masu >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Sebastian Mohr <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi flexcoders, >>> >>> we have a problem with the new webservice generator in Flash Builder 4 >>> release >>> version and we wonder if somebody could help us out. We would love to be >>> able >>> to generate value objects which themselves inherite from other value >>> objects. With >>> Flex Builder 3 this was possible ... see the following: >>> >>> FLEX BUILDER 3 GENERATED AS-CODE: >>> >>> public class TemplateDataComponentVO extends DataComponentVO >>> >>> { >>> >>> public function TemplateDataComponentVO() {} >>> >>> >>> >>> [ArrayElementType("DataComponentVO")] >>> >>> public var structuredComponents:Array; >>> >>> [ArrayElementType("LogoVO")] >>> >>> public var logoPool:Array; >>> >>> [ArrayElementType("TemplateVO")] >>> >>> public var framePool:Array; >>> >>> } >>> >>> public class DataComponentVO >>> >>> { >>> >>> public function DataComponentVO() {} >>> >>> >>> >>> public var name:String; >>> >>> public var labelText:String; >>> >>> public var type:String; >>> >>> public var data:Object; >>> >>> public var dataType:String; >>> >>> } >>> >>> ... here is the >>> JAVA-CODE FOR WEBSERVICE: >>> >>> public class TemplateDataComponentVO extends DataComponentVO >>> { >>> public Collection<DataComponentVO> structuredComponents; >>> public Collection<LogoVO> logoPool; >>> public Collection<TemplateVO> framePool; >>> public TemplateDataComponentVO() >>> { >>> super(); >>> } >>> } >>> >>> public class DataComponentVO >>> { >>> public String name = ""; >>> public String labelText = ""; >>> public String type = ""; >>> public Object data = ""; >>> public String dataType = ""; >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> public DataComponentVO() {} >>> } >>> >>> So ... inheritance was working in Flex Builder 3 but not in >>> Flash Builder 4 anymore ... see the following, confusing ... >>> >>> FLASH BUILDER 4 GENERATED AS-CODE: >>> >>> public class TemplateDataComponentVO extends_Super_TemplateDataComponentVO { >>> [...] } >>> >>> [ExcludeClass] >>> >>> public class _Super_TemplateDataComponentVO extends EventDispatcher >>> implements IValueObject { [...] } >>> >>> >>> public class DataComponentVO extends _Super_DataComponentVO { [...] } >>> >>> >>> [ExcludeClass] >>> >>> public class _Super_DataComponentVO extends EventDispatcher >>> implementsIValueObject { >>> [...] } >>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Does anybody know how I can force Flash Builder 4 >>> to generate inherited value objects? We would like to >>> be able to generate the following inheritance chain: >>> >>> public class TemplateDataComponentVO extends DataComponentVO { [...] } >>> >>> public class DataComponentVO extends _Super_DataComponentVO { [...] } >>> >>> >>> [ExcludeClass] >>> >>> public class _Super_DataComponentVO extends EventDispatcher implements >>> IValueObject { [...] } >>> >>> ... >>> >>> We know a lot has moved forward in Flash Builder 4 but, >>> for us, this restriction seems to be one step back. >>> >>> >>> Thanks and cheers, >>> masu >>> >>> >>> >> > >
