Hi Maxime, What's the difference between you new SkinnablePopup and the existing SkinnablePopupContainer ?
Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Maxime Cowez [mailto:maxime.co...@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 11 octobre 2013 11:25 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: FLEX-33806 and spark Alert implementation I've been working on a Spark implementation of Alert, which I've discussed on this list before (see http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Alerts-and-dialogs-in-Flex-4-x-Spark-was-Alerts-and-dialogs-in-FlexJS-td27595.html). Unlike the current experimental implementation - which is a port of the old mx Alert - it's rewritten from scratch. I've been meaning to integrate it with the existing implementation so that its API would be more or less backwards compatible and then submit it as a patch, but haven't had a shred of spare time these last few months :( What's a bit different in my approach is that Alert extends SkinnablePopUp (which is a new base class, and hence Alert is no longer a SkinnableContainer). SkinnablePopUp can be extended and/or skinned any which way you want and offers total flexibility, whereas Alert is a default implementation with a few SkinParts. I used these SkinParts: [SkinPart(required="true")] public var textDisplay:IDisplayText; [SkinPart(required="false")] public var titleDisplay:IDisplayText; [SkinPart(required="false")] public var commitButton:IVisualElement; [SkinPart(required="false")] public var discardButton:IVisualElement; [SkinPart(required="false")] public var cancelButton:IVisualElement; [SkinPart(required="false")] public var iconDisplay:BitmapImage; Only 'textDisplay' is required since an Alert without a message doesn't make much sense; the others are optional. Max On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Maurice Amsellem < maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: > >Simplification tends to remove flexibility. Spark components are supposed > >to leave control of all visuals to the skin designer. For example, can > >the custom skin designer swap out a messageDisplay that does plain > >text > with one that does rich text? > > If you replace plain text with rich text, it's not only a skin design > change in my sense, because you are also changing the behavior (you > have to change to calling code as well). > Yet, you can do it by subclassing Alert to RichAlert and just swap the > content and override one of the static methods to use your RichText. > With the previous implementation, you could replace the skin part with > RichText in the skin, but you will still have to subclass Alert to set > the richText correctly. > > The problem here is that it's not a Skinnable Component but a > Skinnable Container. > It's different because Skinnable containers content is part on the "data" > and not of the skin. > It's not clear to me if changes in the content of SkinnableContainers > should be set as skinParts and moved to the skin (and disabling the > content > skinpart) > or just overriding the content in a subclass of the container. > > What do you think? > > Maurice > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : vendredi 11 octobre > 2013 06:26 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: FLEX-33806 and spark > Alert implementation > > > > On 10/10/13 7:20 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >Being an experimental component I think just about any improvement is > >a good idea. > I agree with that statement, but is removing skinparts a "good idea"? > Simplification tends to remove flexibility. Spark components are supposed > to leave control of all visuals to the skin designer. For example, can > the custom skin designer swap out a messageDisplay that does plain > text with one that does rich text? > > Getting rid of monkey patching PanelSkin sounds like a good idea though. > And defaulting to BitmapImage and plain text. > > Have fun, > -Alex > >
