Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 215349F85 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41715 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2012 18:20:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 41613 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2012 18:20:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 41605 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2012 18:20:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of flex.programming@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.193 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.193] (HELO mail-iy0-f193.google.com) (209.85.210.193) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:12 +0000 Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so867877iab.0 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:19:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=OUrO7U3eY3vO09o8Yus8xJVwhw02ZV/3K5wZXVwC3yE=; b=dj+rFt6vSYtOJ1yWX6knckFWV6jA7rDFZV2Fwobh8okhfjxZ6yMj84Q8OQocvjtzEH O7XuROH2srQKQiFmZnCBFT54FcePHB+hDP4lKXmMUdhrzuJ1jOnfvyKHKrZMDh5o0J9v 6Zkcr6StvaqZ/rOba4plneK7Aks1Tzq00s9aU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.15.161 with SMTP id y1mr13242100igc.4.1327342791379; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.204.70 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:19:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:19:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Flex 5 UIComponent - Behavior Pattern From: Bogdan DINU To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340c59934bdf04b7361331 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --14dae9340c59934bdf04b7361331 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hey, you haven't answered my reply question : "what should we favor ? Inheritance ?Composition ?". I would really love an answer :) Now, those Spark "things" are dependent on whom has the "teacher" and why they did it like that. I have nothing to confess, but the fact that in my company everything is OK. Why ? Because certain concepts where introduced when they were mature enough... In other words, no matter how much complex is that component, I really don't believe that they could complicate it beyond speed of Flex 4.0... Last but not least, performance consideration were always in our heads (me, you, the world). I'm also really sure that you do this as the last thing before handing over the product, not to impress, not to show yourself something, but passing through iteration 2 to apply the real optimization that you have foreseen when you've started the "poison" (sorry, misspell : it's "project"). Looking forward for your reply, please have my best regards! Bogdan --14dae9340c59934bdf04b7361331--