Comments on: [Bindable] on a read-only getter is unnecessary and will be ignored.

By: Tim John

Tim John — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:44:14 +0000

@seanos I tried the method you suggested, having the getter as public and the setter as protected/private, but it seems that the setter's namespace is overridden to public. As a result, the property isn't read-only and I can change it from outside the class. Here's a good example of how to truly bind to a read-only getter.

By: seanos

seanos — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:53:01 +0000

To get around this problem I created a setter, but set it private. From an external class this property is still ‘read-only’, but the event does get fired implicitly by the [bindable] private setter function

By: Tink

Tink — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:52:56 +0000

I’m with Josh.

Everything you mark bindable should have a custom event that’s fired when the property changes.

By: evden eve

evden eve — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:29:53 +0000

good works

By: Josh McDonald

Josh McDonald — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:32:28 +0000

Not only does using a custom event name per property improve performance, it makes it trivial to add some [Event] metadata to your class or MXML document, and then you can trigger off property changes easily using events, without using the MXML binding synax or going through BindingUtil.

By: [Bindable] on a read-only getter is unnecessary and will be ignored. – Josh Talks Flash | Enigmatic Thought

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:01:02 +0000

[…] Josh Talks Flash Josh posted about something I just ran into the other day.Â The warning [Bindable] on a read-only getter is unnecessary and will be ignored appeared when I was creating a Model for an MVC application.Â Since I was using an ArrayCollection […]