Re: [flexcoders] To code-behind or not to code-behind?

[JesterXL]

Took me 3 weeks to get that the root MXML tag was actually the class I was extending.  That through me for a loop.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Julian Suggate To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [flexcoders] To code-behind or not to code-behind? Thanks for your time everyone.   Because we have barely scratched the surface with Flex, I am asking stupid questions probably ... apologies if it's coming across as obtuse.   I think I was getting confused because "mxml is the class". Call me slow on the uptake! I only just clicked that separating the code from the mxml makes no difference semantically -- seems more of an ideological debate than anything else. I'm not a big fan of those! I can see why Steven's initial response was kind of blase. I think we'll go with the grain on this one and just stuff AS into our mxml. If it bites us later we'll just refactor.   On 11/4/05, Steven Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The existence of ActionScript code in the MXML file or not, has never impacted on the strategy for skinning.   Good to hear.   For the psycho-analytically inclined, you can see the process of paradigm-shifting going on in glorious technicolour as I continue to ask silly questions and then back down ;-)   But you're probably accustomed to that on this list.   Jules -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.