On 5/21/17, 1:38 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I like the idea. Sencha follows a similar pattern as far as I remember. I
>don't like mxmlID. Everything in MXML is MXML. I would go with 'localId',
>for the one that doesn't translate to HTML, and 'id' for the one that
>does.
>Also, there's nothing preventing an AS3 class from accessing the so called
>'mxmlID'.
I don't care too much what we call this property, but I cannot think of a
scenario where someone would write 'mxmlID' from an AS3 class. Instead, I
think you will always access the referenced object by its assigned name.
IOW:
---- Foo.mxml ----
<SomeBaseClass>
<SomeClass mxmlID="bar" someProperty="baz" />
</SomeBaseClass>
Means that you will write "bar.someProperty". In fact, it might be
possible for "mxmlID" or "localID" to be a pseudo-property and not
actually a property on the object. We already do this for "includeIn" and
"excludeFrom" in states. These properties are truly MXML-only and not
ever set on the object.
If we want to be more descriptive, we could call it "documentID" or even
"documentVariableName" or "mxmlDocumentVariableName" which is actually
what it does.
Thoughts?
-Alex
