I think tink uses a similar approach as you mentioned bogdan, .. just looking at his source code ;-)
Cyrill On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Bogdan DINU <flex.programm...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I recall correctly, mobile components have destruction policy declared > by ViewNavigatorBase. However, I don't deny that a NavigatorContent with > creation/destruction policy is useful, but altering UIComponent (which is > already huge) is not the best option in my opinion. > > All the best, > Bogdan > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 2/28/13 9:53 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cyrill.za...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hey >> > >> >> a while ago, I've looked over the Accordion from "adobe.next" branch, >> >> having the same intention on my mind. What I found out is that they went >> >> all the way down, modifying UIComponent to add elementCreationPolicy and >> >> elementDestructionPolicy to the NavigatorContent, in order to make the >> >> Accordion support creation and destruction policies. >> >> >> >> Since Accordion component seems the only one who needs that, my approach >> >> (which remained an experiment that I haven't had time to finish), was to >> >> create a class named NavigatorContentWithPolicies that extends >> >> SkinnableContainer, so UIComponent doesn't need to be altered. >> > >> > @Alex or Carol do you know if there were any reason why >> > elementDestructionPolicy was added in UIComponent and not in a way as >> > Bogdan describes? >> I don't know for sure. It maybe be that we wanted all kinds of containers >> to allow for destruction policies. I think there are lots of scenarios in >> mobile where destruction policies are important and NavigatorContent may >> not >> always be involved. >> >> -- >> Alex Harui >> Flex SDK Team >> Adobe Systems, Inc. >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >> >> > > > -- > http://www.badu.ro
