I don't know if it would be more "general" since it would be Flash-specific, but re-use of code from Storage is always a great goal. The MXRoyale components re-use quite a bit of code from Basic.
Taking a quick look at the ASDoc, SharedObject offers both Local and Remote flavors and a "connect(NetConnection)" API which is probably not needed for locally storing some data and would drag in dependencies for NetConnection emulation from MXRoyale. Meanwhile, org.apache.royale.storage.LocalStorage seems to have a similar API to the subset of SharedObject that folks would actually use for a local SharedObject, so the MXRoyale emulation of SharedObject would probably subclass or wrap LocalStorage. Of course, I could be wrong... -Alex On 1/30/20, 9:05 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: Possibly a MX version with Flash APIs should use a more general version from Storage? > On Jan 30, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know LSO or the Storage SWC that well, but there is some sort of LocalStorageProvider.as file already in Storage. > > IMO, if you are planning to 100% emulate the Flash LSO, that should go in MXRoyale. A more platform-independent API for local storage should go in Storage. I don't know what is already there. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 1/30/20, 7:23 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I was searching for some Flex counter part to the LSO classes in MXRoyale > but didn't find anything. > So if nobody opposite I'll move to the Storage library that seems its > natural place. > > Thanks > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca79b7a12ace243a1de7008d7a5a69466%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637160007186377921&sdata=lNxcjfaUNG%2BbuqsOk4O3KDm0e9fmoZPmZF72yVBmOw8%3D&reserved=0 > >
