I do not believe that we have had to extend MovieClip in any application
so far.
We tend to treat Movie Clips as a stage where you put things that you
want rendered rather that a functional object.
I am not sure that I know the high level theoretical argument but one
does see a lot of really strange code and problems come through the
forum from people who have tried to bend a MovieClip into something that
it really was never intended to be.
When you are trying to decide what Object to subclass, look at the basic
tenets of OOP and decide if your new class is really an extension of a
MovieClip or just a View object that needs a MovieClip to draw on.
If you just want to draw something on a MovieClip then create an Object
that has a function/method that gets a MovieClip object as a parameter
and draws on it. This makes your Object much easier to write and
understand and is likely a lot more reusable.
Ron
Michael Trim wrote:
Not all classes have to extend MovieClip (in fact, most shouldn't, and
some would argue none should).
Just as an aside, I'd be interested to hear why some would argue that
you should never extend MovieClip? (Surely you have to for the Document
class) or is this a higher level theoretical argument?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
