incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Campos <jonbcam...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Flex and names spaces in MXML
Date Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:15:13 GMT
I think adding a default namespace only adds confusion.

"So why do I leave this components namespace blank and set another?"

I would drop the idea for default namespaces
On Mar 16, 2012 6:37 PM, "Left Right" <olegsivokon@gmail.com> wrote:

> No-no-no :)
> Framework code is an extension, an add-on. There is absolutely no reason it
> should get into "default" namespace. There is enough frustration as it is
> about all sorts of non-built-in AS3 code that Adobe tossed into Flash CS,
> and made the use mandatory. Please don't add even more to it. All these
> http.../mx, http.../halo etc namespaces are no default. A lot of people
> using Flex (compiler) don't need them and don't want them.
>
> Too little profit for too many changes. If you want to make really good
> template language - forget about XML at all, it's not meant to be a good
> template language, it has never been designed to be it. The benefits of
> having XML as a template language are that other tools support it already
> and that it is familiar to the users. If you lose the first benefit and you
> confuse your users, you are left with nothing.
>
> After all, I seriously think that what namespace there should be is
> irrelevant, the actual task is to make it so it is most flexible. Flexible,
> in my understanding is "possible to substitute or remove". I.e. if I wanted
> to put List class into default namespace, while not using Flex framework, I
> wouldn't have to deal with any naming collisions. This is, by the way,
> quite realistic requirement, because, for reasons beyond my comprehension,
> in Flex framework, List names a graphical component, while any programmer
> with some experience would expect List to be a data structure.
> Well, it's like Java classes are in java.lang.* package, Lisp default
> functions are in common-lisp-user package, .NET core classes are in
> Windows.* namespace etc. Default namespace is for the programmers, not the
> language (and they shouldn't really use it too, unless maybe for
> experiments).
>
> After all, you really look at it from a perspective of someone who only
> used MXML for one particular thing and that's why the solution you are
> trying to offer might look logical to you, but it absolutely doesn't fit in
> other use cases. As I mentioned above: UIComponent isn't a requirement for
> MXML, so, if, as you suggested before, these namespaces were defined in
> UIComponent, other legitimate uses would suffer from it because they would
> have to bring in UIComponent class, and you really don't want to feed
> that monstrously obese piece of code to the compiler, once your entire
> project may be 10000 (ten thousands!) times smaller than that thing.
> Now, is there a particular class, which is a requirement for MXML? - no,
> there isn't any. So, you don't have a place to store these namespaces, even
> if it was somehow technically possible.
>
> Using some other template language to generate AS3? - yup, that's
> interesting :) I was once thinking about some very simple language for
> describing resource files. My first idea was CSS, but then I realized it is
> overly complex (has redundant parts), then I looked at Protobuf - cool, but
> it would be difficult to add Flash-specific things and it already requires
> things impossible in Flash (64-bit integers). I was thinking about
> something like JSON, but it's overly verbose and doesn't allow references.
> I finally stopped at symbolic expressions, but got some other things to do
> :) Though I think that it could actually work.
>
> Best.
>
> Oleg
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message