I have a custom component called ButtonPanel written in Actionscript. Basically it's just a panel that displays a mx:ButtonBar in the upper right of the mx:Panel title bar and responds to the clicks of the buttons in the bar.
A ButtonBar has three styles available for the buttons: buttonStyleName, firstButtonStyleName, and lastButtonStyleName. I want to write these styles for the ButtonPanel so that if it is declared as such:
<comp:ButtonPanel buttonStyleName="myButtonStyle" ... />
then the ButtonPanel will pass the style through and set the corresponding style of the ButtonBar.
I really have no clue where to start on this because I've never messed with defining styles. Can someone help?
What you refer to as "pass-through" styles are actually called inheriting styles. The solution to your question is in fact quite simple.
You use the style metadata on your custom component to declare that ButtonPanel has a stylename called 'buttonStyleName':
[Style(name="buttonStyleName", inherit="yes")]
public class ButtonPanel extends Panel {
....
}
Note the 'inherit' flag which is set to true: this will make sure that any component inside your custom Panel that has the same style will inherit the value that you've given to that style at the Panel level.
Setting this metadata will make sure that FlashBuilder will suggest buttonStyleName as a style and not as a property (as would happen with Sam's solution).
Edit: already defined styles
I didn't realize at first that you were referring to the mx ButtonBar (as it's not explicitly mentioned). The reason this is not working for you is that mx:ButtonBar already has these styles defined as not inheriting. Look at the source code:
[Style(name="firstButtonStyleName", type="String", inherit="no")]
[Style(name="buttonStyleName", type="String", inherit="no")]
[Style(name="lastButtonStyleName", type="String", inherit="no")]
Because of this the compiler will complain when you try to override that definition in your custom Panel, because it simply wouldn't know which of the contradictory instructions to pick. So we'll have to do a little more work if you want to stick with mx:ButtonBar.
First define the styles on ButtonPanel exactly as they are defined in mx:ButtonBar so they have the same signature (you can just copy/paste the three lines above). This will shut up the compiler but the styles won't be inherited anymore, right?
So we'll have to pass them on manually: in your custom Panel skin, override the updateDisplayList() method and - assuming that the ButtonBar's id is 'buttonBar' - add the following:
private const buttonStyles:Array = [
"firstButtonStyleName",
"buttonStyleName",
"lastButtonStyleName"
];
override protected function updateDisplayList(unscaledWidth:Number,
unscaledHeight:Number):void
{
if (buttonBar)
for each (var buttonStyle:String in buttonStyles)
buttonBar.setStyle(buttonStyle, getStyle(buttonStyle));
//some other code
super.updateDisplayList(unscaledWidth, unscaledHeight);
}
This will take the styles from the host Panel and pass them on to the ButtonBar.
In order to pass these styles through, you only have to store them as string variables, and then pass them to the internal ButtonBar.
<mx:ButtonBar ... buttonStyleName="{buttonStyleName}" ... />
[Bindable]public var buttonStyleName:String;
If these two lines of code don't explain it fully to you, let me know and I can flesh out my example.
Related
I cannot seem to find any simple examples of this.
I have a WPF UI that I wish to display a view as a child control within another view. The MvxWpfView inherits from UserControl so it should be possible, however I cannot seem to work out how to do the binding.
I get a BindingExpression path error, as it cannot find ChildView property in my ParentViewModel.
So how do I bind a view to control content?
Firstly it's possible that you just need to add the BViewModel you want displayed on AView as a property on ViewModelA
E.g.
public class AViewModel: MvxViewModel
{
public BViewModel ChildViewModel
{
get;set;//With appropriate property changed notifiers etc.
}
}
Then inside AView you just add a BView, and you can set the datacontext of BView as follows:
<UserControl DataContext="{Binding ChildViewModel}"/>
However, if you want something more flexible (and you want the presentation handled differently for different platforms) then you will need to use a Custom Presenter
Inside your setup.cs you override CreateViewPresenter:
protected override IMvxWpfViewPresenter CreateViewPresenter(Frame rootFrame)
{
return new CustomPresenter(contentControl);
}
Now create the class CustomPresenter you need to inherit from an existing presenter. You can choose between the one it's probably using already SimpleWpfPresenter or you might want to go back a bit more to basics and use the abstract implementation
The job of the presenter is to take the viewmodel you have asked it to present, and display it "somehow". Normally that mean identify a matching view, and bind the two together.
In your case what you want to do is take an existing view, and bind a part of it to the second view mode.
This shows how I have done this in WinRT - but the idea is very similar!
public override void Show(MvxViewModelRequest request)
{
if (request.ViewModelType == typeof (AddRoomViewModel))
{
var loader = Mvx.Resolve<IMvxViewModelLoader>();
var vm = loader.LoadViewModel(request, new MvxBundle());
if (_rootFrame.SourcePageType == typeof (HomeView))
{
HomeView view = _rootFrame.Content as HomeView;
view.ShowAddRoom(vm);
}
}
else
{
base.Show(request);
}
}
So what I'm doing is I'm saying if you want me to present ViewModel AddRoom, and I have a reference to the HomeView then I'm going to just pass the ViewModel straight to the view.
Inside HomeView I simply set the data context, and do any view logic I may need to do (such as making something visible now)
internal void ShowAddRoom(Cirrious.MvvmCross.ViewModels.IMvxViewModel vm)
{
AddRoomView.DataContext = vm;
}
Hopefully that makes sense! It's well worth putting a breakpoint in the show method of the presenters so you get a feel how they work - they are really simple when you get your head around them, and very powerful.
I just want to set one property from default class.But I could't do this successfully yet.
Why I asked this question? I wanted to set Spark List view, but when I create a new Item Renderer, some of default properties changes,e.g. seperator line is removed or height property resized for each item area.
Or, How to reference default skin class to custom one?
The default skin classes are part of the Flex SDK. So you can't really modify them unless you edit the classes in your SDK and do all necessary steps to recompile it. Obviously, this is not a good approach.
Instead you should extend the skin classes that you wish to modify. After you do that, you can use CSS to make your new skin class the default skin for a given component.
Example skin class:
package com.mycompany.skins
{
import spark.skins.spark.ButtonSkin;
public class MyButtonSkin extends ButtonSkin
{
// add new properties or set new values on existing properties
public myCustomProperty:Boolean = true;
}
}
CSS:
s|Button {
skinClass: ClassReference("com.mycompany.skins.MyButtonSkin");
}
The other approach would be to extend the skin class as above. However, instead of using CSS to make it the default skin, you would specify the skin class on each component:
<s:Button id="myButton" skinClass="com.myCompany.skins.MyButtonSkin" />
This is obviously more tedious than using CSS, but will let you selectively apply the skin where you want it.
I'm currently working on a project where I have a ton of classes inheriting from other classes which inherit from other classes and so on. It's probably more complex than it should be, but I am a sucker for abstraction.
Anyway, at times I need to change a getter/setter from being public to private. I suppose it's not really a need, but a desire to cut off things that are preset in child classes, but still need to be publicly accessible in the parent classes.
So an example would be:
Class Base {
public function set label( value:String ):void{};
}
Class A extends Base {}
Class B extends A {
public function B() {
super();
this.label = "stuff";
}
override public function set label( value:String ):void {
//this setter should not be publicly available since the label should not be possible to change in this class
}
}
Currently, I am doing one of two things in these cases:
override the setter to do nothing or set it to the default value so that it can still update/render/whatever
throw an error saying it is unavailable in that class
I've done some searching and everything seems to point to this being impossible, but I've never found it explicitly stated that it is impossible. So is it possible to change the access modifier on an inherited property/function?
It is not possible, and it really should not be, because it leads to confusing and unpredictable class hierarchies. For starters, if you did something like that, you would break the Liskov Substitution Principle: A super class should at all times be replaceable by its derived classes. Changing the API would clearly prevent that - and thus possibly lead to runtime errors and/or inexplicable glitches, if another programmer accidentally exchanged types.
If the classes you are modeling have different behavior in such a way that would make you "hide" an otherwise public API method, you should probably not use inheritance for this - or perhaps in a different way. From what you are describing, I would guess that in a larger part of your hierarchy, you should probably be using composition instead of inheritance, anyway.
It is not possible for the very reason in the comments by Marty Wallace. But it's not an uncommon thing to do.
However in the alternative you used, The property owner is the base class & hence it should always know of anything that the derived class does with it's own properties.
Instead of your hack I would thus prefer something like this :
public class Base {
protected var _isLabelUsable:Boolean = true;
public function set label( value:String ):void {
if (!_isLabelUsable)
throw new Error("Access of undefined property label.");
// Set Label here
}
}
public class A extends Base {
}
public class B extends A {
public function B() {
super();
_isLabelUsable = false;
}
}
These are all valid points, but...
There are cases where they are all void.
Given a base class that comes from an external source. Like, say, mx:Panel.
It has the property 'titleIcon:Class'
The derived class inherits all properties and functions. But people using it shall never set the titleIcon directly, because part of the derived class' functionality depends on the availability of an icon name being known. It provides a property iconName:String. Setting it will also set the titleIcon.
Now how to prevent people from still setting the icon directly? The UI is offering the old property for AS3 and MXML, and the compiler will (of course) not complain.
If titleIcon is a setter/getter pair (in this case, it is), and not final, then the derived class can override the setter and throw an error, while the iconName setter will assign the icon class to super.titleIcon.
However, this is clumsy and will not work for final functions or variables.
If there were a way to at least tell the UI to not offer the property anymore or show a warning...
I always created additional property to MovieCLips using the syntax
myMC.myProperty
without any sort of declaration... But i can use this method only with MovieClips.. What about if i want to add a property to a button or any different type of object? I need to extend the class? Do you can me suggest how? Many thanks
You can add property to movieclips in runtime because MovieClip is dynamic class. If the class is not dynamic, you should extend it to create methods and properties.
Read about dynamic classes.
I tend to create custom classes for nearly everything.
I would extend the relevant class and set up a private var for your new property. You can then pass in the value to the constructor or add a getter/setter method to call externally.
private function _myProperty:int;
public function get myProperty():int
{
return _myProperty;
}
public function set myProperty(newVal:int):void
{
_myProperty = newVal;
}
Getter/setter methods add a few lines of code that may seem unnecessary but on big projects when you find a property is being set and you don't know why, you can put a break point in your set myProperty
Subclass is main solution.
Next works only with mx components (flex sdk 3).
Most components have data : Object property that you can freely use to store data.
Monkey patching sometimes is the only way to go. It allows you to add custom properties to flex sdk classes. I don't think you should use it in your case. But I used it to change core logic that is locked by private keyword in flex sdk.
Hope that helps.
I want to set (manually) the skinState (for example 'disabled') of a button (that I skinned) in ActionScript.
For example:
I have a button skin with hostComponent: components.backend.btnMenuBakComp
The button skin has the default button states (up, over, down, ...), but I want to set one of this skinStates in ActionScript.
For example:
subMenu.btnDashboard.currentState = "disabled";
This doesn't work because the state "disabled" is not known in the component (it is only known in the skinState of btnDashboard).
How can I fix this?
Is there another solution then load a new skinClass?
Thanks
Quick and dirty
You can access the skin of any component and just set its state directly:
subMenu.btnDashboard.skin.currentState = "disabled";
That is however not a very clean way to do it. You are telling a Skin class directly what to do and completely bypassing the host component. Hence the host component has no idea of the changes that were made to its skin.
The proper way
A cleaner way to approach this is to expose a property on the host component and then tell the skin to adjust itself to possible changes by overriding the getCurrentSkinState() method.
You could for instance create a property 'enabled' and then tell the skin to update its state by calling invalidateSkinState() whenever 'enabled' is being set.
public function set enabled(value:Boolean):void {
_enabled = value;
invalidateSkinState();
}
Calling invalidateSkinState() will make the skin call getCurrentSkinState() in the next render cycle. This method will then look something like this:
override protected function getCurrentSkinState():String {
return _enabled ? "normal" : "disabled";
}
Do note that since you are skinning a Button (or a subclass of it) all that I've written here is already baked into that component. So the answer to your question might be as simple as : "just set the 'enabled' property to true.
subMenu.btnDashboard.enabled = true;