So how would one get a document base query parameter into a WTKX binding? as in <Label text="%id"/> one would need to write a bunch of stuff (that would be nuts)
Why not make it nice as it so easily could be? On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
