Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <430DD221-CFC9-414E-8D15-95490AC7AC55@tink.ws>
From: Tink <flex@tink.ws >
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: IView & ViewNavigator
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:03:46 +0000

I know I'm jumping the gun here but....

On Adobe's 4.6 list there seemed to be a decent amount of interest in  
having an IView interface for use with the mobile navigators instead  
of them being typed to View.

It seemed strange to me that Adobe choose to extend SkinnableContainer  
for the View class for the following reasons.

1. You create instances of containers, and add elements to them. With  
mobile navigators, they create the instance, so 99% of people are  
extending view, it might as well be a Group, as you won't be using  
Skin Parts.

2. If you are using Skin Parts, you'd want a SkinnableComponent, not a  
container.

Both these reduce the DisplayObjects required. I just don't see a user  
case for the heaviest option, a container, that no-one uses as a  
container, and is what your stuck with as there is no interface.


With that in mind I put the necessary classes together for this. I  
have an IView interface implemented throughout, although there is a  
need here and there to cast to UIComponent for access to properties  
and methods behing the mx_inernal namespace.

So I have a custom

NavigationStack
SlideViewTransition
View (implements IView)
ViewDescriptior
ViewNavigator
ViewNavigatorBase
ViewTransitionBase

and added

GroupView
IView
SkinnableComponentView


would this sort of stuff be of interest, or should I continue to push  
this stuff into my own open source lib?


Tink