I am wondering why this is weird? Could there be a case where
someone wanted to have a write-only property? I agree that it is
pretty uncommon, but I am wondering if it problematic from an
architecture standpoint?
- Kevin
On Apr 22, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Gordon Smith wrote:
(BTW, setters
shouldn't have to store it myself.
Gordon Smith
Adobe Flex SDK Team
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:53 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] passing
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gordon Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:27 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] passing parameters to components
Hi, Tracy.
Nice writeup! I have a few comments...
1. The phrase
Hi.
In partial answer to my own question (and not seem a complete and utter idiot)
here's what Im currently doing:
In my component (SiteList) I have a setter function:
private var personId:String;
public function set setPersonId(p:String):void {
personId = p;
}
In my main component:
_personID).
Gordon Smith
Adobe Flex SDK Team
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Luke Vanderfluit
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:57 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] passing parameters
There are many ways. Below is a document I started, but have not
polished, but should be of some use.
Tracy
Communicating between Components:
Note: for loose coupling use events. But that is another topic.
A non-trivial flex application is component based. While all of the
built-in
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tracy Spratt
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:08 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] passing parameters to components
There are many ways. Below is a document I started, but have
7 matches
Mail list logo
