Bummer... I've got some classes in which I'm doing a lot of the stuff
declaritvely in MXML, and I just didn't want the ids leaking into the public
API.

I guess I'll just have to rethink things a little bit, make the declarative
stuff the public API, and have it reference the functions that are declared
in <mx:script> that used to be ;-)

-J

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bjorn Schultheiss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Everything you described is possible except the protected instead of
> public part.
> At some point one of the accessor must be public.
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "Josh
> McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Is it possible to define (non visual) components in MXML that are
> protected
> > instead of public, but can still be referenced by the ID (or a name, or
> > something)?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -J
> >
> > --
> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
> thee."
> >
> > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
"Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to