> > I think it should be a subclass of Rect for performance reasons...if people > need something else, they will figure it out. If people want a Skinnable > or fancier spacer, they can create a simple custom class for their own > purposes. >
But you cant do things like this: <mx:Spacer id="spaceBetweenTwoImages" width="300" height="300" toolTip="Double click anywhere to add a new image" contextMenu="spaceContextMenu" /> It might not be a very common use case, but it is a valid use case nevertheless. mx:Spacer supports everything that UIComponent supports. Creating s:Spacer by extending off of s:Rect would fail for these cases. I see the performance argument, but we want to also make sure that existing apps can easily get rid of mx namespace as easy as possible. Thanks, Om On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > mx.controls.Spacer is nothing but a UIComponent. It adds nothing and it > > modifies nothing. The only difference is the usage in a given context. > To > > keep it consistent, we should just copy it over to > spark.components.Spacer > > and call it a day. > > > I agree with this. With this particular component for me its not so much a > need to change its implementation or capabilities but rather to start being > able to actually code my MXML using only one namespace. Perhaps I'm just > being overly OCD here, but <mx:Spacer /> in my <s:HGroup/> tags annoys the > shit out of me. I'd be perfectly happy to just move mx:Spacer to > spark.components.Spacer and call it a day. > > -- > Omar Gonzalez > s9tpep...@apache.org > Apache Flex PPMC Member >
