So I don't really feel all that strongly that the current behavior is incorrect, and it is fairly easy to workaround by adding to the stage invisibly as suggested.
That being said, it was a bit inconvenient in my current project so I worked around it by just passing in an optional width and height as constructor parameters to the View, and falling back to the stage dimensions if they are not provided. I also had to muck around in the clipping class so that the screen method would fall back to the passed in dimension parameters if the stage was unavailable, but overall it was pretty straightforward. It doesn't seem like this breaks backwards compatibility in any obvious way, so that is one potential solution. -Ken On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Rob Bateman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Makc > > I'm asking for suggestions on how we could modify the framework to > allow this functionality in future, rather than dismissing it. If you > have something you wish to suggest, please speak up! > > Rob > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Makc <[email protected]> wrote: > > ths reminds me an old argument between Rob and someone from > > papervision regarding untyped objects use. essentially same arguments > > on both sides: "not a good way to go" - "it works, and we like the way > > it works" > > > > > > -- > Rob Bateman > Flash Development & Consultancy > > [email protected] > www.infiniteturtles.co.uk > www.away3d.com >
