>Simplification tends to remove flexibility. Spark components are supposed >to leave control of all visuals to the skin designer. For example, can >the custom skin designer swap out a messageDisplay that does plain text with >one that does rich text?
If you replace plain text with rich text, it's not only a skin design change in my sense, because you are also changing the behavior (you have to change to calling code as well). Yet, you can do it by subclassing Alert to RichAlert and just swap the content and override one of the static methods to use your RichText. With the previous implementation, you could replace the skin part with RichText in the skin, but you will still have to subclass Alert to set the richText correctly. The problem here is that it's not a Skinnable Component but a Skinnable Container. It's different because Skinnable containers content is part on the "data" and not of the skin. It's not clear to me if changes in the content of SkinnableContainers should be set as skinParts and moved to the skin (and disabling the content skinpart) or just overriding the content in a subclass of the container. What do you think? Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : vendredi 11 octobre 2013 06:26 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: FLEX-33806 and spark Alert implementation On 10/10/13 7:20 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >Being an experimental component I think just about any improvement is a >good idea. I agree with that statement, but is removing skinparts a "good idea"? Simplification tends to remove flexibility. Spark components are supposed to leave control of all visuals to the skin designer. For example, can the custom skin designer swap out a messageDisplay that does plain text with one that does rich text? Getting rid of monkey patching PanelSkin sounds like a good idea though. And defaulting to BitmapImage and plain text. Have fun, -Alex
