It should be looking at fields also -- Only public ones, though. So
you have a public instance field named "user" that's not being found?
On Sep 12, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Greg wrote:
> One thing I have noticed with this is that you are only using the
> gettter/setter's to see if a binding is correct. It would be good
> if you also used the classes instance variables. Since coming from
> Xcode and WOBuilder, the binding created was never to getUser, but
> rather user since KVC would handle getting the accessor for user.
>
> Greg
>
> On 12/09/2005, at 9:57 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
>
>
>> I thought I had posted already, but I can't find the post -- too
>> much programming over the weekend I think :)
>>
>> Several people have emailed me asking for this -- support for WOD
>> binding-name completion based on the API file is in (for project,
>> framework, and core components) ... Completely standing on
>> Ulrich's shoulders with his API parser :) . There are also a
>> bunch of new error checks in the WOD file: check for element names
>> defined in HTML but no in WOD, check for element names defined in
>> WOD but not in HTML, check for duplicate definition of element
>> names in WOD, check for duplicate definition of binding names,
>> check for existence of type names + that it is instanceof
>> WOElement, and the usual check for proper syntax.
>>
>> I don't do API binding validation yet. I can't recall if I asked
>> this before, but if you have an API file that defines bindings,
>> can you ONLY bind to something defined in the API file or is it
>> the usual get/set methods PLUS the bindings defined in the API file?
>>
>> And I'm still working the kinks out of the error checking --
>> occasionally I manage to get it to freak out a little (I think
>> there a certain case where the parser gets greedy and one of the
>> rules gobbles up an extra character at the end, which throws
>> everything off), but I haven't nailed down the actual repeatable
>> scenario that causes it. If you happen to see it and can figure
>> out what causes a repeatable case, let me know.
>>
>> WOD error checking still is not hooked up to a builder, so you
>> only see errors for files that you have opened. Incidentally,
>> would people LIKE it to be a builder? The downside is obviously
>> that the time to do a build increases. Going forward, any new
>> file you make will have the incremental error checking, so this is
>> really only an issue for finding errors in existing projects.
>>
>> ms
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 20:03:05 EDT