I’m also not understanding what positioner does. Why can’t you get a reference to the parent element from the FlexJS parent?
On Jul 29, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cool. > > I’m not totally getting the use case of the IFlexJSElement, but there’s > definitely nothing wrong with adding a wrapper class that extends a Flash > type. > > I’d think it should extend DisplayObject rather than InteractiveObject though. > > On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/28/16, 9:58 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I gave everything a $displayObject property which is an alias to the >>> specific DisplayObject type. There’s also $sprite $textField $shape and >>> $button for the specific types. >>> >>> I did this to avoid having to do casting all over the place. >>> >>> I did not use element because it was a IFlexJSElement and Flash doesn’t >>> know what to do with that. >> >> Maybe I'll revisit this after we see if we can get Application to not be a >> Sprite. In my thinking, we'd borrow the interfaces from regular Flex that >> contain all of the APIs for InteractiveObject and have IFlexJSElement >> extend that. I think we will want a consistent back-pointer from the >> Flash object to the wrapping instance. That's what flexjs_wrapper does in >> the JS side. We'd have to subclass the Flash classes to add a >> flexjs_wrapper property and use them instead of plain Sprite, >> SimpleButton, etc. Then we could use the "element" property and not have >> HTMLElementWrapper always instantiate a Sprite. Button would instantiate >> a SimpleButton. Doing that in createElement overrides would theoretically >> share more code with the JS side. Similarly the "positioner" property >> could be repurposed as well. >> >> Individual components could certainly have a separate property to save on >> casting, but it might just be a var instead of a getter to save on >> function call overhead of getters. >> >> I could be missing some advantage of doing it the way you did though. >> >> Meanwhile, I have Application refactored to use a Factory class. Now to >> see if I can get DataBindingExample off the ground. >> >> -Alex >> >> >
