"David Kelly" <dmkelly10RemoveMe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$hWT9qwEHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Rather than complaining to myself about this I thought I should put it out
> there and see if others agree with me (or can point out ways it can
already
> be done).
>
>
>
> Two things I would love to see data binding support are:
>
>
>
> COMPILER CHECKED BINDING
>
> To be able to bind a properties in a way that is checked by the compiler
> rather than waiting for a possible runtime error due to a typo. e.g.
>
>
>
> instead of
>
> MyTextBox.DataBindings.Add(New Binding("Text", MyObject, "Name"))
>
>
>
> It would be great to write:
>
>
> MyTextBox.DataBindings.Add(New Binding(Text, MyObject.Name))
>
>
>
> and have both the fact that MyTextBox has a Text property and that
MyObject
> has a Name property are checked at compile time. This of course would be
> easier to write as well as Code Completion would help you with the valid
> properties. I appreciate that this syntax might be too confusing for the
> compiler - that is not really something I understand very well. Maybe
there
> needs to be a new function like AddressOf to point to the property instead
> of the value of the property.
>
>
>
> SUB PROPERTY BINDING
>
>
> When binding a collection of complex objects to a grid you cannot bind a
> column to a sub property of the object. e.g.
>
>
>
> MyColumn.MappingName = "Address.Line1"
>
>
>
> is not valid. This really bothers me as I end up comprimising my design
in
> order to display the objects in a grid. The same point as above applies
> here as well that it should be compiler checked rather than a string as in
> my example.
>
>
>
>
> Please comment on this. If many of us feel the same way maybe things will
> change in the future (or I will find I am in a very small minority :-) )
>
>