flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FlexJS Image.source
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2016 06:03:53 GMT
Any objections to me getting rid of the view and model classes for image? It really does seem
to complicate the component for no apparent reason.

On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’m not really seeing the value of a model and view in Image either. I just followed
the existing pattern.
> I’m not quite following why the model and the view is needed for the SWF side either
on simple components like this.
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On 8/8/16, 10:29 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/8/16, 10:19 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It’s the view as well, and why? I’m missing something. It’s used for
>>>> HTML and SWF.
>>> Looks like I thought it wasn't needed on the JS side.  Since it is baked
>>> into the JS Image (which is probably a bug) it gets compiled in anyway.
>> A thought did pop into my head.  At one point in time, I was thinking that
>> the JS versions would really be thinly wrapped HTMLElements and not have
>> separate models and views.  I don't remember when JS started having models
>> and views and why.  It might be so your application code can cross-compile
>> or for consistency with more complex components.  But really, I'm not the
>> value of having separate model and view on the JS side for things that
>> don't do much more than wrap an HTMLElement.
>> -Alex

View raw message