On 7/28/16, 2:55 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It should be creating it in the constructor. Is there a problem with >doing it like that? Not sure. I thought you were going to re-purpose the 'element' property from the JS side. Is there a reason you didn't do that? I think assuming a Sprite is not correct for simple components that don't have children like Button. IMO, no need to wrap Buttons inside Sprites. Thoughts? -Alex > >On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Harbs, >> >> I've started poking around in this branch. How is the SWF version >> supposed to create the wrapped element? I would've expected >>createElement >> to be used? Or is it somewhere else? >> >> -Alex >> >> On 7/28/16, 11:43 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 7/27/16, 1:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/27/16, 1:27 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The only class which still subclasses Sprite is Application. I >>>>>>>don’t >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> a way around that. >>>>>> >>>>>> One idea is that, since developer code never instantiates an >>>>>> Application >>>>>> (only the framework does) that Application could be an interface. >>>>>>The >>>>>> framework would instantiate the concrete class. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure how to go about this, but I’m not sure how bad it is for the >>>>> main app to subclass Sprite. I’ll leave this for someone else. >>>> >>>> If we don't fix this, the Application code-hinting will show all the >>>> Flash >>>> stuff. >>> >>> Thinking about it more, Application can't be an interface since it is >>>used >>> in MXML. I will try to use [FactoryClass] and have the factory wrap >>> itself with Application. I think right now that will add a >>>"first-frame" >>> to the SWF which FlexJS doesn't have right now (but Flex does). >>>Anybody >>> think that's a bad idea? >>> >>> -Alex >>> >> >
