On 6/25/12 10:06 AM, "Roland Zwaga" wrote:
>>
>> How much freedom do we have?
You have lots of freedom. Often there is more than one way to solve a
problem and by being first to suggest a solution, you get to put a stake in
the ground, and I know I am less likely to want to change something
>
> How much freedom do we have? Marking it public is fine, using a getter is
> fine, adding a setter is fine as well.
>
> What about adding the effect instances to the effectsPlaying property on
> EffectManager.effectStart() method? Would that have any adverse effect? If
> it did we could refactor
How much freedom do we have? Marking it public is fine, using a getter is
fine, adding a setter is fine as well.
What about adding the effect instances to the effectsPlaying property on
EffectManager.effectStart() method? Would that have any adverse effect? If
it did we could refactor effectsPlayi
That's what I thought but it only contains trigger effects. The effects
dictionary contains effect instances that are registered in
mx.effects.EffectInstance startEffect() and then removed with the
finishEffect(). You can get the
public function startEffect():void
{
EffectManager.e
com>]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 08:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Make EffectManager effects property public
Hi,
> Currently the EffectManager effects property is private. This property
> shows what effects are in effect. Making
Effects is a Dictionary that uses an effect as the key of an entry, and only
ever uses 1 as the value of an entry.
If you want to know what effects are playing, can't you use the mx_internal
'effectsPlaying' property? This is an array of EffectNodes (an internal class
so you wouldn't be able to
Hi,
> Agreed, a read-only property sounds safer. Even though it would still allow
> outside parties to add or remove keys.
You could add a method/setter that makes a copy of the dictionary. The
AdvancedDataGriud columns getter does this (array rather than dictionary but
basically the same thing
>
> Hi,
>
> > Currently the EffectManager effects property is private. This property
> > shows what effects are in effect. Making this public will allow for
> > diagnostics.
>
> Probably adding a pubic getter would be a little safer? What do other
> people think?
>
Agreed, a read-only property sou
Hi,
> Currently the EffectManager effects property is private. This property
> shows what effects are in effect. Making this public will allow for
> diagnostics.
Probably adding a pubic getter would be a little safer? What do other people
think?
Justin
