On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/17/14 3:44 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I was looking at making GraphicShape implement IUIBase. > > > >The AS interface has a bunch of method definitions > > > https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/develop/frameworks/as/projects/Fl > >exJSUI/src/org/apache/flex/core/IUIBase.as > > > >The JS interface is looking empty > > > https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/develop/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src/ > >org/apache/flex/core/IUIBase.js > > > >Is this intentional? > Yes. No code runs in the JS or AS version and the AS version should be > all that's needed for type-checking. If Closure Compiler needs it then we > can fill it in. > I think I understand. So, here is my scenario: I want to keep the GraphicShape object as light as possible, because I think we will have a ton of those on a complex skin or chart. I see that we need only the addedToParent() method (that too only on the JS side, because I need to some calculations after an element has been added to the DOM) I don't think it is worth extending UIBase and add all that weight to each GraphicShape. The next idea was to just implement IUIBase. Now I am wondering if we should create an interface for objects that only need the addedToParent() method, in effect an IChild or IElement interface? This would let me make GraphicShape extend flash.display.Shape on the AS side and nothing on the JS side. Both could just implement just the IChild interface. What do you think? Thanks, Om > > -Alex > >
