Don't be afraid of MXML. It's great for laying out views. If you write your own reusable components then writing them in ActionScript may sometimes give you a little more control, but for non-reusable views MXML is much better. It's more terse, bindings are extemely easy to set up, etc.
However, bindings in pure ActionScript need not be that much of a pain. It will never be as simple as in MXML where a lot of things are done for you, but it can be done with not too much effort.
What you have is BindingUtils and it's methods bindSetter and bindProperty. I almost always use the former, since I usually want to do some work, or call invalidateProperties when values change, I almost never just want to set a property.
What you need to know is that these two return an object of the type ChangeWatcher, if you want to remove the binding for some reason, you have to hold on to this object. This is what makes manual bindings in ActionScript a little less convenient than those in MXML.
Let's start with a simple example:
BindingUtils.bindSetter(nameChanged, selectedEmployee, "name");
This sets up a binding that will call the method nameChanged when the name property on the object in the variable selectedEmployee changes. The nameChanged method will recieve the new value of the name property as an argument, so it should look like this:
private function nameChanged( newName : String ) : void
The problem with this simple example is that once you have set up this binding it will fire each time the property of the specified object changes. The value of the variable selectedEmployee may change, but the binding is still set up for the object that the variable pointed to before.
There are two ways to solve this: either to keep the ChangeWatcher returned by BindingUtils.bindSetter around and call unwatch on it when you want to remove the binding (and then setting up a new binding instead), or bind to yourself. I'll show you the first option first, and then explain what I mean by binding to yourself.
The currentEmployee could be made into a getter/setter pair and implemented like this (only showing the setter):
public function set currentEmployee( employee : Employee ) : void {
if ( _currentEmployee != employee ) {
if ( _currentEmployee != null ) {
currentEmployeeNameCW.unwatch();
}
_currentEmployee = employee;
if ( _currentEmployee != null ) {
currentEmployeeNameCW = BindingUtils.bindSetter(currentEmployeeNameChanged, _currentEmployee, "name");
}
}
}
What happens is that when the currentEmployee property is set it looks to see if there was a previous value, and if so removes the binding for that object (currentEmployeeNameCW.unwatch()), then it sets the private variable, and unless the new value was null sets up a new binding for the name property. Most importantly it saves the ChangeWatcher returned by the binding call.
This is a basic binding pattern and I think it works fine. There is, however, a trick that can be used to make it a bit simpler. You can bind to yourself instead. Instead of setting up and removing bindings each time the currentEmployee property changes you can have the binding system do it for you. In your creationComplete handler (or constructor or at least some time early) you can set up a binding like so:
BindingUtils.bindSetter(currentEmployeeNameChanged, this, ["currentEmployee", "name"]);
This sets up a binding not only to the currentEmployee property on this, but also to the name property on this object. So anytime either changes the method currentEmployeeNameChanged will be called. There's no need to save the ChangeWatcher because the binding will never have to be removed.
The second solution works in many cases, but I've found that the first one is sometimes necessary, especially when working with bindings in non-view classes (since this has to be an event dispatcher and the currentEmployee has to be bindable for it to work).
Are apps that just extend Sprite (used in the FlexBuilder IDE, for instance) a viable way of doing an application, or are they just for HelloWorlds?
In Flex you have the option of extending the Sprite class or implementing the IUIComponent class. There are differences though.
Under what conditions would you not bother to use the Flash IDE?
Do you need dataservices? In that case, I am not too sure how easy it is to work with the Flash IDE.
Can MXML files be used with apps that just extend Sprite?
Not too sure what you mean by apps. However, AS3 components work just fine with MXML. Sprites will have to be wrapped up in some sort of a IUIComponent if you are using it with MXML. MXML is syntactic sugar. It is compiled into AS3 and as such may not be as efficient if you were to code them up.
This blogpost may be of interest to you.
Best Answer
Yes. MXML is translated into an ActionScript class. You can see the generated as code by adding -keep-generated-actionscript switch to the Additional compiler arguments in Project properties->Flex compiler.