> What's the difference between you new SkinnablePopup and the existing
SkinnablePopupContainer ?
It's how SkinnableComponent compares to SkinnableContainer, but for popups.
So it allows you to create custom popups without having to wrap them in a
SkinnablePopUpContainer or a PopUpAnchor.
>From a pragmatic point of view it allows you to do things like this:
<fx:Declarations>
<rs:Alert id="alert" title="Hello world"
text="Are you sure you wish to say hello?"/>
</fx:Declarations>
<s:Button label="Say hello" click="alert.open()"/>
As another example implementation of SkinnablePopUp (besides Alert)
I've created a Toaster class (you know, messages that pop up and stack
up in a corner of the screen for a few seconds), which can be used
like this:
<fx:Declarations>
<rs:Toaster id="toaster" width="150" bottom="20" right="20"/>
</fx:Declarations>
<s:Button label="Say hello" click="toaster.toast('Hello there from the
Toaster')"/>
M
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Maurice Amsellem <
maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
> BTW, I like the idea of the mxml based Alert (in addition to AS script
> API) :-)
>
> Maurice
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 11 octobre 2013 11:31
> À : dev@flex.apache.org
> Objet : RE: FLEX-33806 and spark Alert implementation
>
> Hi Maxime,
>
> What's the difference between you new SkinnablePopup and the existing
> SkinnablePopupContainer ?
>
> Maurice
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Maxime Cowez [mailto:maxime.co...@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 11
> octobre 2013 11:25 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: FLEX-33806 and
> spark Alert implementation
>
> I've been working on a Spark implementation of Alert, which I've discussed
> on this list before (see
> http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Alerts-and-dialogs-in-Flex-4-x-Spark-was-Alerts-and-dialogs-in-FlexJS-td27595.html
> ).
> Unlike the current experimental implementation - which is a port of the
> old mx Alert - it's rewritten from scratch.
> I've been meaning to integrate it with the existing implementation so that
> its API would be more or less backwards compatible and then submit it as a
> patch, but haven't had a shred of spare time these last few months :(
>
> What's a bit different in my approach is that Alert extends SkinnablePopUp
> (which is a new base class, and hence Alert is no longer a
> SkinnableContainer). SkinnablePopUp can be extended and/or skinned any
> which way you want and offers total flexibility, whereas Alert is a default
> implementation with a few SkinParts.
> I used these SkinParts:
>
> [SkinPart(required="true")]
> public var textDisplay:IDisplayText;
>
> [SkinPart(required="false")]
> public var titleDisplay:IDisplayText;
>
> [SkinPart(required="false")]
> public var commitButton:IVisualElement;
>
> [SkinPart(required="false")]
> public var discardButton:IVisualElement;
>
> [SkinPart(required="false")]
> public var cancelButton:IVisualElement;
>
> [SkinPart(required="false")]
> public var iconDisplay:BitmapImage;
>
> Only 'textDisplay' is required since an Alert without a message doesn't
> make much sense; the others are optional.
>
> Max
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Maurice Amsellem <
> maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
>
> > >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
> >
> >
>
