Interesting or not, it's wrong the way it is currently coded. :-) That argument is mean to be an instance of Resources, and currently it can be an instance of any class that implements Dictionary<String, Object>.
On Friday, March 20, 2009, at 12:31PM, "John Pritchard" <[email protected]> wrote: >but that would make Pivot less useful and interesting > > >On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ah, that's right. >> >> I think using a Resources argument is still the right call. That's the >> intended use case here. >> >> On Friday, March 20, 2009, at 12:21PM, "John Pritchard" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >If the WTKX constructor parameter class were to change to Resources, >> >then Pivot won't be able to bind from document base query parameters into >> >WTKX >> > >> > >> >On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> You raise a good point that the constructor argument type should not be >> >> Dictionary<String, Object>. However, it looks like it should actually >> change >> >> to an instance of Resources. Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Friday, March 20, 2009, at 11:34AM, "John Pritchard" < >> [email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >the WTKXSerializer constructor needs to change from >> >> >Dictionary<String,Object> to Dictionary<String,?> >> >> >looking into it, i see no problem arising out of this. >> >> > >> >> >On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >Actually, I was thinking that we might want to change the binding >> >> syntax >> >> >> >to take a Dictionary<String, ?> instead of Dictionary<String, >> Object>. >> >> >> >That might be a more flexible way to handle it... >> >> >> >> >> >> FYI, this change has been submitted - you should now be able to bind >> >> >> directly to your startup properties. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
