>I've explained how that could be avoided in a more generic way in the end of >the paragraph - why cannot that be a solution? It's ultimately the same >mechanism, as you would add event handlers, actually. If you >think about old >MXMLC code, you could even use the part that generated event handlers to do >that. The benefit would be that:
I am not saying it can't be. Was offering explanation of why they do it. Ultimately its so that with both databinding and other mechanisms you can set properties on that view independent of its full creation. It just removes that responsibility from the developer. > The generated "descriptor" on the other hand, is not reusable, it's just some > amorphous chunk of data. Of course, it never was a good idea to extend MXML > components, but this is not a requirement, given normal >code generation, > this limitation can be lifted. I am not sure I agree with you on the descriptor being a 100% bad idea. I like the fact that MXML acted more as configuration than code. It allowed me to hook its creation and do what I needed to. I really don't want MXML translating directly into object instantiations on my behalf. Mike
