Yes, I seem to recall the lbl3 will completely replace lbl1 and lbl2. I made it a rule never to extend an MXML class in my projects. A new class could only extend an ActionScript class.
- Josh On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 2/1/17, 1:30 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > wrote: > > >For me this is a missing feature that turns into a bug. > >Maybe we could have two beads array. The actual could be the one uses > >"static beads" > >and other array used for developers to add and remove to avoid affect the > >internal one > > Without looking into it, this sounds like a classic Flex problem. When > you use an MXML file as the base class of another MXML file, and both > specify values for an array property, what really should happen? > > An even more common problem is this: > > <!-- Base.mxml --> > <s:Group> > <s:Label id="lbl1" /> > <s:Label id="lbl2" /> > </s:Group> > > <!-- UseOfBase.mxml --> > <local:Base> > <s:Label id="lbl3" /> > </local:Base> > > Where should lbl3 go? Before or after lbl1 and lbl2? Or replace lbl1 and > lbl2? I think the Flex MXMLC compiler results in replacement. > > That said, I tried to fix this for MXMLContent in Falcon/FalconJX. And I > would have expected beads to append so IMO there is a bug in there, > although before just fixing it, it would be good to understand the > ramifications of such a fix. > > -Alex > >
