> This is exactly why I feel we should have these. People first > instinct, at least mine was, was to look for an equivalent. Subclassing > <s:Rect/> with convenience setters would go a long way toward reducing > frustrations people have had with migrating. Not everyone is immediately > aware of >all the skinning possibilities and new paradigms such as the layout > object so anything we can do to smooth out the migration is a plus. Plus it > illustrates proper use of some of the Spark concepts. Don't see how its a bad > thing. If >people really want to keep writing out a few lines for a Rect as > opposed to just writing <s:Spacer width="100" /> then that's their choice but > I think we should have the class available so I'm going to code one up today.
Just my 2 cents. This all seems dangerous. Have a composed implementation of each individual set of classes just gets us back to mx. Why set the width to 100% on a space, why not have <s:FullWidthSpacer/> or <s:FullHeightSpacer/> then you don't need to set the properties at all? Incidentally, I support that idea (honestly) if someone want to compose objects in their own framework or project for their own use, but does the SDK really need to have every combination of composition that's possible? To me that is opposite of a small, tight SDK. Mike
