On 3/11/13 8:27 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> The last entry for each descriptor is a 'null' and is supposed to be
> for "children", but as all child nodes in FlexJS seem to be
> implemented as 'beads', isn't the children entry obsolete?
No, there are certainly children or will be when we have containers.
>
> There is some inconsistency with regard to the final 3 (or 4, counting
> 'children') entries. The description on the is that they are for
> styles, effects and events (and children), but the implementation in
> FalconJS outputs only 2... I assume these two are 'styles' and
> 'events' (in that order) and that 'effects' is obsolete?
It should be properties and events, but I think I'm sticking in 0's for
styles and effects.
>
> That's the ones that caught my eye. As I'm "almost" ready to do a full
> one on one comparison between the output of FalconJS and FalconJx,
> maybe more will pop up.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/13 4:18 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Alex,
>>>
>>> Could you please take a look at:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/MXML+Data+Spec
>>>
>>> and check if that spec is still up to date? I see some differences
>>> between the spec and the current FlexJS output and I'm wondering which
>>> one is leading...
>>>
>> What difference are you seeing? BTW, the only thing that probably shouldn't
>> change is the fact that it is an array of stuff. The format of the stuff
>> can change if it needs to. Also note that you can look at what
>> Falcon/FalconJS is currently doing since it actually works (at least, well
>> enough for the prototype).
>>
>> --
>> Alex Harui
>> Flex SDK Team
>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
