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: <E1716309-AB41-43DE-931B-DC7333E52E8B@tink.ws>
From: Tink <flex@tink.ws >
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4F134B20.6080205@dot-com-it.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Overly large classes (was Flex incubation on Apache as
 Opensource)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:01:55 +0000
References: <060d01ccd3bd$1414aa00$3c3dfe00$@davidarno.org>
 <4F132EEF.8090109@dot-com-it.com>
 <063d01ccd3c8$d4b31d90$7e1958b0$@davidarno.org>
 <4F134B20.6080205@dot-com-it.com>

On 15 Jan 2012, at 21:54, Jeffry Houser wrote:
>> That is kind of what the Spark Architecture did.  And the end  
>> result is that development is more complicated to extending and  
>> modifying things [from the perspective of a component developer] is  
>> a complete nightmare.  It's much worse than the "too many private  
>> variables" problem that existed in the Halo architecture.
>
> For the sake of simplicity in development; wouldn't the MX approach  
> of having a single class to represent the List be better?
>
> In my view Spark favored flexibility over simplicity.
>
> -- 
> Jeffry Houser
> Technical Entrepreneur
> 203-379-0773
> --
> http://www.flextras.com?c=104
> UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
> --
> http://www.theflexshow.com
> http://www.jeffryhouser.com
> http://www.asktheflexpert.com
> --
> Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
>


I much prefer the code base of the Spark List as a user and component  
dev.

Scroller, DataGroup and skinning opened up so many more possibilities.  
Those privates still get in the way though!

Please lets not go back to the MX days!


Tink