Yeah. I like the state delegates. What if you took it one step further and
added inline states?
<s:states>
<s:State name="up"/>
<s:State name="down"/>
<s:State name="over"/>
</s:states>
<s:Group id="focusGroup">
<s:states>
<s:State name="nonFocused"/>
<s:State name="focused"/>
</s:states>
<s:transitions>
<s:Transition fromState"nonDefault" toState"default">
<s:Fade target="{focusRect}" alphaFrom="0" alphaTo="1"/>
<s:/Transition>
</s:transitions>
<s:Rect id="focusRect" top="0" bottom="0" left="0" right="0"
alpha="0" alpha.default="1"/>
<s:stroke><s:SolidColorStroke color="..."/></s:stroke>
</s:Rect>
</s:Group>
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Cosma Colanicchia <cosma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Multiple states using spaces (e.g. currentState="up default") looks nice to
> the eyes.
>
> I was thinking about impact on the transitions management - I'm not sure
> that the current transition approach (fromState/toState) scales well once
> we go this way.
>
> A possible idea could be to support "state delegates", i.e. allow to break
> up the MXML component in subcomponents, and let each of these subcomponents
> manage its own set of states and the related transitions.
>
> Elaborating on the Bill approach, something like:
>
> <s:states>
> <s:ExclusiveStateGroup id="mouse">
> <s:State name="up"/>
> <s:State name="down"/>
> <s:State name="over"/>
> </s:ExclusiveStateGroup>
> <s:ExclusiveStateGroup id="focus" stateDelegate="focusGroup">
> <s:State name="nonFocused"/>
> <s:State name="focused"/>
> </s:ExclusiveStateGroup>
> <s:ExclusiveStateGroup id="selection">
> <s:State name="nonDefault"/>
> <s:State name="default"/>
> </s:ExclusiveStateGroup>
> </s:states>
>
> [...]
>
> <s:Group id="focusGroup"
> top="0" bottom="0" left="0" right="0">
> <s:transitions>
> <s:Transition fromState"nonDefault" toState"default">
> <s:Fade target="{focusRect}"
> alphaFrom="0" alphaTo="1"/>
> <s:/Transition>
> </s:transitions>
> <s:Rect id="focusRect"
> top="0" bottom="0" left="0" right="0"
> alpha="0" alpha.default="1"/>
> <s:stroke>
> <s:SolidColorStroke color="..."/>
> </s:stroke>
> </s:Rect>
> </s:Group>
>
>
> This would allow multiple transitions in each "exclusive state group" to be
> managed indipendently, and make sense to me as well, because often each set
> of these state groups only impacts a specific part of the component (or of
> the skin): in the example, focus just add a glowing border on top of the
> rest.
>
> This allow to grab one or two set of states, and subtract them from the
> cartesian multiplication (and also simplify the related transitions
> management, isolating it from other states). When the "stateDelegate" is
> not provided, it just means that the related states are managed by the top
> MXML component.
>
> In a sense, responding to Jude, this aims to bring the benefits of the
> composition approach (versus the inheritance provided by basedOn states).
>
>
