Mobile wouldn't use modal, and need to make sure its sitting on top of
any other content?
On 16 Mar 2012, at 12:09, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
I wouldn't mind switching it over to a SkinablePopUpComponent. I'll
set
that as a goal.
My only thought on having two versions (a MobileAlert and an Alert)
is that
the MobileAlert would cut out some functionality in order to be a bit
quicker (for example, not launching via the PopUpManager, because we
really
wouldn't use any of that functionality other than the ability to
display
the component). I also have the ability to switch skins based on
the OS
automatically to make it look more native, which would be harder if
they
were all one.
-Nick
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Tink <f...@tink.ws> wrote:
I immediately noticed when looking at this is that it extends
SkinnablePopUpContainer.
In my mind an Alert isn't a container. You do not create one and
then put
contents in it, and therefore you get unnecessary overhead with the
container, and from outside the API will look like you can add
elements to
it.
I would suggest we add a SkinnablePopUpComponent, then and Alert
can be
added on top of that. Then do we need a MobileAlert and Alert, or
can we
not just have a different skin for the 2 versions?
Tink
On 16 Mar 2012, at 04:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
So far I think we mostly agree that having real URLs is nice but
have no
idea what those URL should be.
Are spilt if we should have a small or large number of new
namespaces.
The one I've currently committed is http://www.apache.org/flex
(look in
flex-config.template.xml and/or flex-config.xml) so until we come
up with
something better that what it will be.
Thanks,
Justin
