I already added DisplayUtils to the refactor-sprite branch. I don’t think a bead is necessarily a good fit for this (at least not only a bead). You’d might want to use this in code using any UIBase object.
On Jul 28, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 >> >
