RE: [flexcoders] Re: Am I using States correctly?

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:48:47 -0700

You're probably tired already of hearing from me on this but... I am back with another response. :-)
 
- Since viewstack requires a navigator to function, the implication of using a viewstack is that a navigator would be required. So, if it made sense to have two "menu options" pointing to master and detail, then this is one way to go. If, on the other hand, it makes more sense to only show the detail after the master has been selected, then this method is less attractive IMHO.
- You can also use view states if you want separate UI for master and detail. You could still put the Master UI in the base state, build the Detail off of the base state, and then just delete what's there and completely rebuild the Detail interface... if you wanted to eliminate the blank base state.
 
In either case, it's your choice...
 
Kevin
 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gotgoose09
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Am I using States correctly?

The reason I have the base state blank is because I want the Master and
Detail states to not share UI. Should I implement the Master and Detail
in a ViewStack instead? Anyone else have input into this?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com, "Kevin Mulvihill" <kmulvihill@...>
wrote:
>
> Here's what I'm getting from all the manual reading I've been doing
over the
> past week. Others may correct me or clarify as needed.
>
> - Think of the base state as the "home page"... it's the initial state
of
> the app or component when the user browses to it. I can't think of a
good
> reason why it would ever be empty unless you wanted to implement some
kind
> of transition or effect immediately upon loading it.
> - In the larger sense of UI design, HTML "pages" are addressed in the
Flex
> metaphor with ViewStacks attached to a navigator. Use this for macro
changes
> in the interface.
> - View states are used to display incremental changes in state. Sounds
like
> you are using that correctly insofar as you describe it... however,
> depending on how your user interface is designed and what you're
trying to
> accomplish, the "Detail" state you describe could also be just an
> incremental change to the "Master" state with the Master state
remaining
> visible. Also, the "Master" state could be your base state since it's
empty
> and that's the first thing the user sees.
>
> Also, and more generally, don't forget that Flex development is based
on
> components. So it may be appropriate to shelter your calendar "module"
in a
> component if you haven't already done so...
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com]
On
> Behalf Of gotgoose09
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
> Subject: [flexcoders] Am I using States correctly?
>
>
>
> Coming from a Flash point of view, I am using mx:State as I used Forms
> in Flash. In my current project I have a "Master" state that holds a
> DataGrid with calendar events in it and some buttons to manipulate the
> data. I have a create and edit button that go to a "Detail" state that
> holds a form to create a new event or edit an existing one.
>
> In my code, the States consist of one AddChild that holds the ui. Each
> state is based off of the base state, which is empty. What I'm
> wondering is, is this the correct usage of States or is there a better
> way to do this?
>

__._,_.___

--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com




SPONSORED LINKS
Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development
Macromedia flex Software development best practice

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to