You sure you won't need more of IUIBase like x,y,w,h? I have an Ichild locally for some other reason right now. When I check it in you can add addedToParent if you need it.
-Alex On 9/17/14 4:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/17/14 3:44 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >I was looking at making GraphicShape implement IUIBase. >> > >> >The AS interface has a bunch of method definitions >> > >> >>https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/develop/frameworks/as/projects/F >>l >> >exJSUI/src/org/apache/flex/core/IUIBase.as >> > >> >The JS interface is looking empty >> > >> >>https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/develop/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src >>/ >> >org/apache/flex/core/IUIBase.js >> > >> >Is this intentional? >> Yes. No code runs in the JS or AS version and the AS version should be >> all that's needed for type-checking. If Closure Compiler needs it then >>we >> can fill it in. >> > >I think I understand. So, here is my scenario: I want to keep the >GraphicShape object as light as possible, because I think we will have a >ton of those on a complex skin or chart. I see that we need only the >addedToParent() method (that too only on the JS side, because I need to >some calculations after an element has been added to the DOM) > >I don't think it is worth extending UIBase and add all that weight to each >GraphicShape. The next idea was to just implement IUIBase. > >Now I am wondering if we should create an interface for objects that only >need the addedToParent() method, in effect an IChild or IElement >interface? > >This would let me make GraphicShape extend flash.display.Shape on the AS >side and nothing on the JS side. Both could just implement just the >IChild >interface. > >What do you think? > >Thanks, >Om > > >> >> -Alex >> >>
