Hmm. The way I have it, the templates are dead simple to write and can have
any Container as the root, eg.
<mx:HBox
xmlns:mx="http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml";
>
<mx:VBox id="Left" width="20%" height="100%"/>
<mx:VBox id="Right" width="80%" height="100%"/>
</mx:HBox>
and all that's exposed is the names of the containers "Left" and "Right"
(via an implemented interface I've omitted above). But I suppose I could
provide a template base class (probably a subclass of Box) with a
contentSpec property and an init function to build out the containers - much
like what the LiveDocs call templates, a pattern I use elsewhere. Only
downside is if the template wants non-Box behaviour at the top level it must
nest a Canvas or whatever. No biggie.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> creationCOmplete is a better bet, but pushing stuff into the template
> is potentially bad design. It means you know something about the template
> and have broken encapsulation. Other designs like model/view would have the
> template pull from a data model. Other designs would have an interface to
> the template that abstracts what children do what. That's how many of our
> components work and they use the lifecycle events and methods to validate
> properties "later"
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Rodseth
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:28 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [flexcoders] Template architecture
>
>
>
> I'm prototyping a system where a view is built dynamically from an XML
> description (converted to VOs). The description refers to a template
> (hard-coded in MXML). The dynamic view observes the description (which is a
> part of its model) , and creates a child (the template) and adds it as a
> child. However, it also needs to "fill in" the template which involves
> accessing some of its children by id (eg. template["slot1"],
> template["slot2"] ).
>
> If I construct the template via new Template1(), the children are not yet
> created. Their ids show up in the debugger, but the values are null. Should
> I add a listener for creationComplete, or is this a case where callLater()
> could be put to good effect?
>
>
>
