I would think this might also be a good bead candidate. It could be added as a bead to the View or some container. This way you'd only bring in that code to the app if the app really needed it.
‹peter On 7/28/16, 2:36 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >On 7/27/16, 11:03 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>The other piece of this is stage.getObjectsUnderPoint. >> >>It would be nice to wrap that as well. The question is where to do that. >>HTMLElementWrapper as well? What about getting global objects? There¹s no >>³stage² is there? > >IMO, hitTestPoint and getObjectsUnderPoint (and hitTestObject) would not >be in the base classes. It is possible to build working apps without >them, and in JS, they are not on HTMLElement. Sure it can be more >convenient to have it on the component, but we said that often enough for >Flex that UIComponent is 13,000 lines long. > >Lately, I've been thinking that many of our XXXUtils classes and >functionality like this should be presented as individual functions (like >getDefinitionByName and getQualifiedClassName. Unless some state needs to >be shared between similar implementations, individual functions don't drag >in code that you aren't calling so they are more pay-as-you-go. > >My 2 cents, >-Alex >
