Yeah of course i meant MX dying for new components only. Would you like
to continue to implement MX version of every new component aside to spark?
Why would someone continue to choose MX if the other solution we are
discussing here exists?
I like the SparkSimple lib that you can optionnally include for
beginners or simple skinned projects.
But VGroup and HGroup are not in separated lib, and dont rely on Skins
for specialization. cf Tony answer.
Like i said in my last mail, the main thing that bother me with
simpleSpark featured skin class is that it goes in conflict with the
mobile skins. (maybe im wrong?)
Or we also need a simpleSpark for mobile. Starting from a copy of base
skin class make it more difficult to maintain.
Again, does anyone know why the copy solution has been chosen for
BorderContainer by Adobe?
Le 05/03/2012 04:19, Michael A. Labriola a écrit :
In Conclusion in my opinion:
Spark should be the base for all components from now on.
MX should die mainly because we cant use it for Mobile and it is not
based on Spark (that makes the SDK more hard to maintain).
MX can't die. It is still used by many more projects than Spark. It will need
to be maintained for the foreseeable future
A new components list based on Spark should replace MX for easy and
simple skinning use cases.
I think it's fine to have a rich set of skins that you can use if you want all
of those styling attributes. I would hate to penalize every project though. It
still seems to me that, like HGroup and VGroup, we can extend all of these
classes and put them in a library... perhaps SparkSimple. It's nothing but
composed versions of the other classes with a more full featured skin and
additional style declarations. To me that would be the way to solve both issue.
