I have this singleton that I'm using as a wrapper for global variables and constants, but as soon as I make some [Bindable] I get a crash on start up w/a bunch of red text in my console.
TypeError: Error #1009: Cannot access a property or method of a null object reference.
at BrandGlobals$/get COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND()[C:\MyProject\src\BrandGlobals.as:14]
at BrandGlobals$cinit()
at global$init()[C:\MyProject\src\BrandGlobals.as:2]
at _mainWatcherSetupUtil/setup()
at main/initialize()[C:\MyProject\src\main.mxml:0]
at mx.managers::SystemManager/http://www.adobe.com/2006/flex/mx/internal::childAdded()[C:\autobuild\3.5.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:2131]
at mx.managers::SystemManager/initializeTopLevelWindow()[C:\autobuild\3.5.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:3400]
at mx.managers::SystemManager/http://www.adobe.com/2006/flex/mx/internal::docFrameHandler()[C:\autobuild\3.5.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:3223]
at mx.managers::SystemManager/docFrameListener()[C:\autobuild\3.5.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:3069]
BrandGlobals:
package {
public final class BrandGlobals {
[Bindable]public static var COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND:uint = 0xE010FF;
If I remove that [Bindable] and turn var to const there's no problem (except the obvious problem of not being able to set the variable outside of this file) but this doesn't work. Also, making the whole class [Bindable] instead of this one didn't work. When I hover my mouse over the COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND definition, it says "<exception thrown by getter>". 'Don't know what to think about that.
I might have guessed it was because it has no package, but I'm using another similar singleton which has [Bindable] variables and seems to work fine.
I never did get that [Bindable] twaddle.
I'm using the Flex 3.5 SDK.
I tried Brian's suggestion below, but it gave me pretty much the same error. I even tried:
{
_COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND = 0xE010FF;
trace("Var set."); //Breakpoint here
bLoadedFerCryinOutLoud = true;
}
[Bindable]private static var _COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND:uint;
private static var bLoadedFerCryinOutLoud:Boolean = false;
public static function get COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND():uint {
trace("Returning EVERYTHING background");
if (bLoadedFerCryinOutLoud)
return _COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND;
else return 0xFFFFFF;
}
What's more, if I put a breakpoint at that trace("Var set.");, Flash Builder complains that a break is not possible, because there is no executable code there.
I also noticed that in that call stack that I'm shown when this crash happens during a set and it seems to be the one that sets _COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND. But the only place where it is set is:
public static function SetBackground(oApp:UBIApplication):void {
_COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND = oApp.nBackgroundColour;
}
and breakpoints indicate that this is never called.
The documentation on using the tag has the following to say:
Using static properties as the source for data binding
You can use a static variable as the source for a data-binding expression. Flex performs the data binding once when the application starts, and again when the property changes.
You can automatically use a static constant as the source for a data-binding expression. Flex performs the data binding once when the application starts. Because the data binding occurs only once at application start up, you omit the [Bindable] metadata tag for the static constant. The following example uses a static constant as the source for a data-binding expression:
<fx:Script>
<![CDATA[
// This syntax casues a compiler error.
// [Bindable]
// public static var varString:String="A static var.";
public static const constString:String="A static const.";
]]>
</fx:Script>
<!-- This binding occurs once at application startup. -->
<s:Button label="{constString}"/>
Edit: You need to make sure that your variable is initialized before you try to read it. A static initializer is the way to go:
package {
public final class BrandGlobals {
{
_COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND = 0xE010FF;
trace("Var set."); //Breakpoint here
}
[Bindable]private static var _COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND:uint;
public static function get COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND():uint {
trace("Returning EVERYTHING background"); //Breakpoint here
return _COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND;
}
Putting in breakpoints in the places specified will let you verify that things are executing in the expected order
It turns out that the problem was assigning COLOUR_EVERYTHING_BACKGROUND to a static const elsewhere in the code, as a temporary measure. Hopefully I'll remember that assigning [Bindable]s to static consts is bad and if I don't, I'll remember the meaning of that particular cryptic reaction Flash Builder had. I'm starting to choke StackOverflow w/my questions about cryptic error messages.
Related
Following the answer here, I have created a file called MyGlobals.as and placed some global variables and functions so that I can access it from anywhere within my project just like AS3 buil-in functions such as trace() method.
This is MyGlobals.as which is located in the src folder (top level folder)
package {
public var MessageQueue:Array = new Array();
public var main:Main;
public var BOOKING_STATUS_DATA:Object;
public function postMessage(msg:Object):void {
MessageQueue.push(msg);
}
public function processMessage():void {
var msg:Object = MessageQueue.pop();
if (msg) {
switch (msg.type) {
}
}
}
Looks like my IDE (FD4) is also recognizing all these functions and variables and also highlighting the varibles and functions just like any other built-in global functions. However, I am getting compilation errors "Accessing possibly undefined variable xxx". The code is as simple as trace(MessageQueue) inside my Main (or another classe).
I am wondering if there was any change Adboe has done recently that it can't be done now or am I missing something? I am not sure if I need to give any special instructions to FD to include this MyGlobals.as?
I am using FD4, Flex SKD 3.1, FP12.0
I am aware of the best practices which suggests to avoid using this type of method for creating global variables but I really need it for my project for my comfort which I feel best way (right now) when compared to take any other path which involves daunting task of code refactoring. I just want do something which can be done in AS3 which I guess is not a hack.
I've done some playing around; it looks like you can only define one (1) property or method at package level per .as file. It must be the same name (case-sensitive) as the .as file it is contained in.
So no, nothing has changed since the older Flash Versions.
In your case that would mean you need five separate ActionScript files along the lines of:
MessageQueue.as:
package
{
public var MessageQueue:Array;
}
main.as:
package
{
public var main:Main;
}
...etc. As you can see this is very cumbersome, another downside to the many others when using this approach. I suggest using the singleton pattern in this scenario instead.
package{
public class Singleton{
private static var _instance:Singleton=null;
private var _score:Number=0;
public function Singleton(e:SingletonEnforcer){
trace(‘new instance of singleton created’);
}
public static function getInstance():Singleton{
if(_instance==null){
_instance=new Singleton(new SingletonEnforcer());
}
return _instance;
}
public function get score():Number{
return _score;
}
public function set score(newScore:Number):void{
_score=newScore;
}
}
}
then iin your any as3 class if you import the singleton class
import Singleton
thn where u need to update the global var_score
use for example
var s:Singleton=Singleton.getInstance();
s.score=50;
trace(s.score);
same thing to display the 50 from another class
var wawa:Singleton=Singleton.getInstance();
trace(wawa.score)
My current project is in as3, but this is something I am curious about for other languages as well.
I'm attempting to use a factory object to create the appropriate object dynamically. My LevelFactory has a static method that returns a new instance of the level number provided to the method. In the code calling that method, I am able to dynamically create the buttons to call the levels like so:
for (var i:int = 1; i < 4; i++) {
var tempbutton:Sprite = createButton("Level " + i, 25, 25 +(60 * i), start(i));
_buttons.push(button);
}
This code just creates a simple button with the given arguments (ButtonText, x, y, function). It's working fine. The buttons are created, and clicking on one of them calls this method with the appropriate argument
private function start(level:int):Function {
return function(e:MouseEvent):void {
disableButtons();
newLevel = LevelFactory.createLevel(level);
addChild(newLevel);
}
}
This is all working fine; I'm just providing it for background context. The question I have is this: Is it possible to dynamically choose the type of object that my static function returns? Currently, I have am doing it as follows
public static function createLevel(level:int):Level {
var result:Level;
switch(level) {
case 1: result = new Level1(); break;
case 2: result = new Level2(); break;
//etc
}
return result;
}
I should note that all of these Level1, Level2, etc. classes extend my base level class. (Yay polymorphism!) What I would like to do is be able to do something along the lines of
public static function createLevel(level:int):Level {
var result:Level;
var levelType:String = "Level" + level;
return new levelType();
}
Obviously it's not going to work with a string like that, but is there any way to accomplish this in as3? What about other languages, such as Java or Python? Can you dynamically choose what type of child class to instantiate?
Update:
import Levels.*;
import flash.events.*;
import flash.utils.*;
public class LevelFactory
{
public static function createLevel(level:int):Level {
var ref:Class = getDefinitionByName('Levels.' + 'Level' + level) as Class;
var result:Level = new ref();
return result;
}
}
Update/Edit: getDefinitionByName seems to be what I'm looking for, but it has a problem. It seems that the compiler will strip unused imports, which means that unless I declare each subclass in the code ahead of time, this method will get a reference error. How can I get around the need to declare each class separately (which defeats the purpose of dynamic instantiation)?
Yes, you sure can, and it's very similar to the string thing that you've provided. The only thing that you are missing is the getDefinitionByName method: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/utils/package.html#getDefinitionByName()
You can generate whatever class name you want, and what this method does is that it searches for that class in it's namespace, and if it finds it - it returns it as a class:
var ClassReference:Class = getDefinitionByName("flash.display.Sprite") as Class;
var instance:Object = new ClassReference();
This piece of code will instantiate a Sprite. This way you can instantiate your classes without all those switches and cases, especially when you have to make a hundred levels :)
Hope that helps! Cheers!
Edit:
In your case, the code should be:
var ref:Class = getDefinitionByName('com.path.Level' + index) as Class;
var level:Level = new ref(); // it will actually be Level1 Class
Since Andrey didn't quite finish helping me out, I am writing up a more complete answer to the question after much research.
getDefinitionByName definitely has the use I am looking for. However, unlike its use in Java, you HAVE to have a hard reference to the class you want instantiated somewhere in your code. Merely imported the class is not enough; the reason for this is that the compiler will strip the reference from any unused import to save space. So if you import the package of classes you want to choose dynamically but don't have a hard reference to them, the compiler will de-reference them. This will lead to a run-time error when the program cannot find the appropriate reference to your class.
Note that you don't actually have to do anything with the reference. You just have to declare a reference so that it can be found at run-time. So the following code will work to eliminate the switch-case statement and allow me to dynamically declare which class I am using at run-time.
{
import Levels.*;
import flash.events.*;
import flash.utils.*;
/**
*
* Returns the requested level using the createLevel class
* ...
* #author Joshua Zollinger
*/
public class LevelFactory
{
Level1, Level2, Level3, Level4, Level5, Level6, Level7;
public static function createLevel(level:int):Level {
var ref:Class = getDefinitionByName('Levels.Level' + level) as Class;
var result:Level = new ref(); // it will actually be the correct class
return result;
}}}
The obvious downside to this is that you still have to have a hard-coded reference to every class that can be instantiated like this. In this case, if I try to create a Level8 instance, it will through a run-time error because Level8 is not referenced. So every time I create a new level, I still have to go add a reference to it; I can't just use the reference dynamically.
There are supposedly ways around this that I have not tested yet, such as putting the code for the classes in a separate SWF and importing the SWF at run-time or using outside libraries that will have different functionality. If anyone has a solid way to get a truly dynamic reference that doesn't require a hard coded reference anywhere, I would love to hear about it.
Of course, it's still a lot cleaner this way; I don't have a extensive switch case statement to pack all the levels. And it's easier and faster to add a reference to the list than creating a new case in a switch. Plus it is closer to dynamic programming, which is usually a good thing.
So, I have successfully grabbed a value out of an XML document and set it into a separate class called "AddCommas." The trace functions have shown me that it sets properly.
For more details, my objective is to take the language indicator ("fr" for french or "en" for english), set it inside the appropriate class and into a variable I will use. Now, I am using this variable to be used in an if statement; which will help me format a number properly (commas, decimals, spaces) per the clients request.
However, my problem is when I try to get the value to use it. It always comes back as Null. I have placed traces all over my program trying to pinpoint when this happens, but I cannot find it. Here's the code...
The pull from the XML file and into the set (this works fine, but I am adding it for your benefit in case I missed something)
public var commaHold = new AddCommas();
localLanguage = xmlObj.localLanguage;
trace("localLanguage + " + localLanguage);
commaHold.setLanguage(localLanguage); // Set Language
//More code follows...
This is the set function istelf...
public function setLanguage(localLanguage:String){
langHold = localLanguage;
trace("Set Language = " + langHold); //This always shows a successful set
}
Now am I wrong in thinking that in AS3, once langHold in my AddCommas class has been set I should be able to use it without calling a get within the function I am using the If Statement in, right? Such as this?
var language = langHold;
if (language == "en"){
trace("Language is = " + language); // More code follows afterwards and as of now, this shows NULL
Now, I have attempted plenty of Get functions to add the language variable in the call itself to this function and it's always the same. Am I missing some fundamentals here?
Thank you very much for your time.
If you expect a string comparison you need to use quotes, unless en is a String variable since langHold is a String, like:
if (language == "en"){
Consider modifying the set function to use the as3 keyword like:
private var _language:String;
public function set language(value:String):void {
_language = value;
//do other stuff here if necessary, put a breakpoint on the line above
}
public function get language():String{
return _language;
//put a breakpoint on the line above
}
You should be able to see when any instance of your class has the property changed. The only other issue I can think of is it is not the same instance of the class and therefore doesn't share the property value you set earlier. In the debugger you can check the "hashCode" or "address" it shows for this to see if it changes when it hits the breakpoints.
Here's a sample Singleton structure in AS3 (this all goes in one file):
package com.shaunhusain.singletonExample
{
public class SingletonExample
{
private static var instance:SingletonExample;
public static function getIntance():SingletonExample
{
if( instance == null ) instance = new SingletonExample( new SingletonEnforcer() );
return instance;
}
/**
*
* #param se Blocks creation of new managers instead use static method getInstance
*/
public function SingletonExample(se:SingletonEnforcer)
{
}
}
}
internal class SingletonEnforcer {public function SingletonEnforcer(){}}
using this single shared instance from any other class would look something like this:
private var singletonInstance:SingletonExample = SingletonExample.getInstance();
ShaunHusain's theory of using a Singleton was the perfect solution I needed. However, his code gave me a bizarre 1061 error and my format and code appeared to be error free. Regardless, I looked up another way to use a Singleton as follows that worked perfectly for me. Honestly, Shaun's code should work for anyone and I have no idea why it wasn't. I am perfectly willing to admit that it was probably a typo on my end that I just did not see.
I ended up embedding the Set and Get within the Singletons class and used it as an intermediary to hold the information I needed. It worked perfectly.
package chart {
import chart.*;
//
public class StaticInstance {
private static var instance:StaticInstance;
private static var allowInstantiation:Boolean;
private var language:String;
public static function getInstance():StaticInstance {
if (instance == null) {
allowInstantiation = true;
instance = new StaticInstance();
allowInstantiation = false;
}
return instance;
}
public function StaticInstance():void {
if (!allowInstantiation) {
throw new Error("Error: Instantiation failed: Use StaticInsance.getInstance() instead of new.");
}
}
public function setLanguage(_language:String):void{
language = _language;
trace("language set = " + language);
}
public function getLanguage():String{
return language;
}
}
}
This code allowed me to hold the data and call upon it again from two different classes. It's a very hack job instead of just being able to pass on the variable from function to function, but in my case we didn't create this file, we are modifying it and attempting to do things beyond the original scope of the project.
Thanks again for your help Shaun! I hope this helps other people!
I have a movie clip with an external class attached.
here is the MC code (I've shorten it only for the relevant part...)
package {
//all the imports here...
public class mc_masterChapter extends MovieClip {
public function mc_masterChapter() {
trace (picFile,strChapTitle);
}
//Properties
public var picFile:String;
public var strChapTitle:String;
}
}
In the main class file I'm adding this object to stage using addChild:
var masterChapter:mc_masterChapter = new mc_masterChapter;
masterChapter.picFile = "pic_Chap1.jpg";
masterChapter.strChapTitle = "ABCD:
addChildAt(masterChapter,1);
now, the trace in the MC class code gives nulls to both parametes but if i put a trace inside the MC timeline (instead of the attached class code), it gives the right value!
how can I access the values from the MC class itself without getting nuls?
Thank you.
It works! Let me explain:
var masterChapter:mc_masterChapter = new mc_masterChapter; // Calls class constuctor
// so calls trace() too!
// You will get null null
masterChapter.picFile = "pic_Chap1.jpg"; // Assign the variables
masterChapter.strChapTitle = "ABCD"; // so they can be read
trace(masterChapter.picFile, masterChapter.strChapTitle); // Should trace pic_Chap1.jpg ABCD
If you add the following method to your class:
public function test():void {
trace(picFile, strChapTitle);
}
Then call masterChapter.test() it will successfully trace those two properties. So yes, the class can read its properties.
Make the var you use in your main class public static vars.
OK!
I solved the mystery.
I put two traces. one in the main MC class saying "hey, I'm inside the MC - the picFile="
and one in the put Function saying "I'm putting this file into picFile:"
well this is what I've got:
hey, I'm inside the MC - the picFile=null
I'm putting this file into picFile:image.jpg
got it!?! at the moment I asked him to give birth to an instance of the MC (even before putting it on stage - just defining the object (with this line:)
var masterChapter:mc_masterChapter = new mc_masterChapter;
it allready run the class, so of course that in this stage the parameters were not defined allready and were null.
the definition code came right after that line (in the main.as)
masterChapter.pic="pic_Chap1.jpg";
so what I did, was to move all the code from the main class of the MC object to a public function inside the same package called init(). Then I called this function manually from the parent main class.
By that I can decide when to call it (after I declare all the parameters of course).
That's it.
god is hiding in the small details : )
tnx for all the helpers.
Possibly a better solution would be to use a getter/setter pair, so you can know at the exact moment the properties are set:
protected var _picFile:String:
public function get picFile():String {
return _picFile;
}
public function set picFile(value:String):void {
if (value != _picFile) {
_picFile=value;
trace('picFile set to', _picFile);
}
}
I currently have a mobile application on the playbook that has the following class:
[Bindable]
public class Foo
{
public var myString:String;
public var myList:ArrayCollection;
public function Foo() {}
}
I also have persistNavigatorState="true" in my ViewNavigatorApplication.
Suppose in my first view I have the following in my creationComplete="init()" call:
private function init():void {
var s:String = "test_string";
var a:ArrayCollection = new ArrayCollection();
a.addItem("test1");
a.addItem("test2");
a.addItem("test3");
data.foo = new Foo();
data.foo.myString = s;
data.foo.myList = a;
trace(data.foo.myString);
trace(data.foo.myList[0]);
trace(data.foo.myList[1]);
trace(data.foo.myList[2]);
}
When executed, everything works fine in my app. However, since I want the sessions to persist in case the user accidentally closes the app, when he re-opens it the data should still be there.
Instead, when I close and re-open my app only the myString property persists (ie traces "test_string", as intended), however the ArrayCollection isn't copied.
I've tried the following with ObjectUtil.clone() and ObjectUtil.copy():
data.foo.myString = ObjectUtil.copy(s) as String;
data.foo.myList = ObjectUtil.copy(a) as ArrayCollection;
and I've also tried:
var f:Foo = new Foo();
f.myString = s;
f.myList = a;
data.foo = ObjectUtil.copy(f) as Foo;
trace(data.foo.myString);
trace(data.foo.myList[0]);
but this only throws me a
TypeError: Error #1009: Cannot access a property or method of a null object reference.
Any ideas on how to persist ArrayCollections and Foo class in a mobile application?
I'm not 100% sure, but I was wondering about this type of problem while working on a mobile app recently.
I believe your problem might be happening b/c your are setting the data manually on the View, instead of passing it into the View with the ViewNavigator.pushView() method.
I just browsed through the source, and it looks like setting the data directly on the View will bypass ViewNavigator's data persistence. Though with that said, I'm not sure why it would even remember the value for that String :)
I would try to do the following:
don't set the View's data property from inside the view, as you are doing now in the creationComplete handler
if possible, use the "firstView" property of ViewNavigatorApplication in mxml
if possible, initialize the "firstViewData" property in mxml (may not be possible)
if you can't do the two above, in your application's startup code call navigator.pushView(View_Class_Name, foo) to pass in the data.