flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: FlexJS Application
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:16:29 GMT
I was merging stuff and noticed that Application got changed to be an
IUIBase.  I agree that's tempting, and DivApplication or whatever would
need to be an IUIBase, but IMO, Application doesn't really behave like
other child components.  I saw that stubs were added for alpha, visible,
x, y that don't do anything.  I'd rather get an error that my code is
about to make a call that doesn't do anything.

In my mind, Application is not really a display object.  In MXML, lots of
non-display stuff gets hung off of it.  That's why it currently has an
initial view.


On 8/1/16, 1:21 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>I was thinking that the application would be attached to <body>
>automatically if the id does not exist (or if the id is not specified).
>I don’t see a reason to make it more complicated than that (i.e. beads or
>separate classes)
>On Aug 1, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Yishay Weiss <yishayjobs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Subclassing is probably a better options because DivApplication will be
>>required to implement IUIBase whereas the current Application is not.
>> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aharui@adobe.com>
>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 7:19 AM
>> To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: FlexJS Application
>> On 7/31/16, 8:29 PM, "piotrz" <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>> I think this functionality should be optional. Maybe it should be some
>>> kind
>>> of bead. Can it be?
>> Or maybe just a different application class "DivApplication" or
>> like that.
>> -Alex

View raw message