I was merging stuff and noticed that Application got changed to be an IUIBase. I agree that's tempting, and DivApplication or whatever would need to be an IUIBase, but IMO, Application doesn't really behave like other child components. I saw that stubs were added for alpha, visible, x, y that don't do anything. I'd rather get an error that my code is about to make a call that doesn't do anything.
In my mind, Application is not really a display object. In MXML, lots of non-display stuff gets hung off of it. That's why it currently has an initial view. Thoughts? -Alex On 8/1/16, 1:21 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >I was thinking that the application would be attached to <body> >automatically if the id does not exist (or if the id is not specified). > >I don’t see a reason to make it more complicated than that (i.e. beads or >separate classes) > >On Aug 1, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Subclassing is probably a better options because DivApplication will be >>required to implement IUIBase whereas the current Application is not. >> >> >> >> From: Alex Harui<mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 7:19 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: FlexJS Application >> >> >> >> On 7/31/16, 8:29 PM, "piotrz" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Harbs, >>> >>> I think this functionality should be optional. Maybe it should be some >>> kind >>> of bead. Can it be? >> >> Or maybe just a different application class "DivApplication" or >>something >> like that. >> >> -Alex >> >
