I felt that I did qualify my statement, I'll try again with clearly language.
My statement: There is no such thing as a Flair design pattern. My qualification: Brendan Hall's book and deep in the archives of Flashcoders back when Brendan operated this list are the only places you will find reference to it. His class uses the Decorator design pattern. Using a design pattern doesn't mean you've made your own design pattern. Calling it a "design pattern" gives it a level of authenticity that it simply doesn't have and is misleading to anyone who reads it, as the OP has demonstrated with his post. He has no point of reference outside of Brendan's book or this list to support him or his questions. I provided a link that would hopefully help him learn the actual design pattern being used, which is called Decorator. Using Decorator on multiple objects isn't a design pattern, it's the usage of the Decorator design pattern. To your comment that Actionscript isn't C++ or Smalltalk, that's true. My feeling is that Design Patterns are universal, not limited to syntax or language. I didn't mean to imply that GoF holds the one true set of patterns. They don't cover MVC in their book, for instance, a pattern I use regularly. Their book is weighted heavily towards the Composition design pattern, which is slowly being embraced by the Actionscript community. The Flex framework and even the AS3 language are influenced by the power of the Composition design pattern. The Head First Design Patterns book is quite good, as well, and is more accessible than the heady and dense GoF one which I had trouble understanding parts of (often due to lack of experience with C++ and Smalltalk) and had to turn to google and other books to grasp some of the concepts they were talking about. However, the 18 design patterns covered by Head First can all be found in the 23 covered by Gang of Four, and all are on Wikipedia, discussed all over the web, and come up with many useful results in google, in contrast to Brendan's "Flair design pattern". To the ad hominem remark: When you're writing a book to help people and claiming you're using a new design pattern who does it serve? The reader or the author? And if it serves the author and not the reader, is that not an ego driven decision? Years ago, a company I worked at sent a few employees to Figleaf for training and the class was taught by Brendan Hall. I walked away from that class with the impression that Brendan spent most of the time telling everyone how smart he was but not teaching very much at all. His class did little to improve my or my coworkers Flash skills. That experience, the way he ran Flashcoders in the early days, and now this, is, I suppose, why I called it an ego driven decision to call it a design pattern. If you see it as ad hominem, that's my fault for not using clear enough language. Cheers, Steven _______________________________________________ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
