Doug,
My reply was based off of not having anything to do with FC and
Adobe's internal discussions. My opinion was based off of what I hoped
would change through the process of developing Flex 2 & 3 components.
It was cumbersome to write components and "skins" in 2 & 3 :)
Mike
Quoting Doug McCune <d...@dougmccune.com>:
The saddest thing to me is how much time and effort went into building an
entirely new (yet still incomplete) component model (Spark) that was built
all around the idea of Catalyst. That's not to say that the Spark
architecture doesn't have good ideas when you remove Catalyst from the
picture, but the amount of time that went into designing it to work with
the Fc tooling was all for naught. I have to believe many decisions would
have been made differently, and a lot of time would have been invested
differently had the Catalyst tooling support not been the priority.
Personally I'm happy to see Catalyst go, and would have been happier to see
it go long ago.
Having developed an extensive amount of components in Flex 2 & 3 I
will have to disagree that Spark was built "for" or around FC.
Spark was created out of the desire/need to separate the view from
the component. Instead of doing everything in updateDisplayList(),
skins were introduced so views for each component could be
interchanged without having a coupled internal dependency on View
logic and rendering in the UIComponent subclass.
I have never used FC in my life, so I saw Spark as alleviating a
huge coupling that the developer had to constantly deal with.
Mike
