[flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter
We use static constants for all these properties so we don't end up with simple type Os Example: static public const PROP_APPLICATION_IS_READY:String = "applicationIsReady"; private var _applicationIsReady:Boolean; + setter/getter And in the map Odd to see it trapping the type check on foo... but hope this helps. Anthony --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth wrote: > > Any Mate users here? The forums are down again. > > I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows: > > > > Elsewhere: > > > > This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String" > > If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in > question has constructor arguments. > > What's the correct approach here? Thanks. >
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter
Thanks Tim. No, that does not compile. I'll try again on the forums, though I have a workaround in the meantime. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Tim Hoff wrote: > > > Just a stab Richard, but do the binding brackets make any difference? > > targetKey="foo" source="{ legacyModel }" sourceKey="foo"/> > > -TH > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth wrote: > > > > Any Mate users here? The forums are down again. > > > > I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows: > > > > instance="{this.model}"/> > > > > Elsewhere: > > > > > > > > This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String" > > > > If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in > > question has constructor arguments. > > > > What's the correct approach here? Thanks. > > > >
[flexcoders] Re: Mate CacheSetter
Just a stab Richard, but do the binding brackets make any difference? -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Richard Rodseth wrote: > > Any Mate users here? The forums are down again. > > I'm trying to use the newish CacheSetter tag, as follows: > > > > Elsewhere: > > > > This gives the error: "1069 Property foo not found on String" > > If I use the class name instead it complains because the class in > question has constructor arguments. > > What's the correct approach here? Thanks. >