Actually when we posted our component plans (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/flexteam/archives/2007/02/the_flex_teams. cfm) we made clear we definitely want the community to participate in building these things too. Bruce, it sounds like you have a set of components in mind and I know that there are plenty of folks who watch both flexcoders and flexcomponents who would love to know what you'd be interested in paying for. Feel free to send ideas my way, I might even be able to keep a repository of requests, but I think that there are plenty of folks out here who would love to hear them as well.
The larger point, as has been made by others, is we can't do everything at once, and sometimes we decide to advance the framework rather than focus on individual component improvements (though in some of these DG cases we are actually looking at incorporating things into the next release). Rather than saying that you don't want to create a separate new component for every new feature, maybe you guys should set up a components project where popular extensions are built into framework subclasses. Then you can use the extended component that will cover more of your use-cases, rather than rewriting each time. Bruce brings up a separate interesting issue though: we sometimes make decisions in our components to keep them as flexible as possible. The background color of a row or cell is one example, rather than building in logic where we weren't sure if we'd cover all cases we made it possible to implement by writing a subclass. This particular decision is a compromise between extensibility and RAD capabilities (if you'll allow me to make a gross generalization). How many of you would prefer we make things more RAD capable at the potential expense of extensibility? Are you willing to make a tradeoff? I know the answer you really have is "both," but if you had to make a choice would you tell us to go down the RAD path? Matt ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Smith Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Gordon Smith - Some Answers about the Datagrid > please create more components and charge extra for them. I could give you a list of about 20 that would have a value to most business developers. I'm sure the frameworks team would be interested in seeing your list. Please post it on flexcoders or send it to our product manager Matt Chotin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> . - Gordon ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boy_trike Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Gordon Smith - Some Answers about the Datagrid --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gordon Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After all, we > can't provide every feature that developers need without bloating our > components, and we've assumed that subclassing will be a commonly used > technique. Gordon: Instead of making components FATTER, create MORE components. Just like there is a vertical and horiz. grid. I used to have a T-shirt that said "he who dies with the most toys wins" Let me paraphrase, "He who has the MOST components wins " (with faster, more focused solutions" Just like the chart components are an extra price option, please create more components and charge extra for them. I could give you a list of about 20 that would have a value to most business developers. (esp. those getting paid a fair amount for their work. > By the way, when you say "for each cell" do you mean that each cell > needs to render differently based on the data it displays? Or every row > might be different, but each column in a row is the same? Or that each > column is different, but every row in a column is the same? > I mean EACH cell, not row or column. while alt. coloring of rows is asthetically pleasing, and coloring columns can make one stand out, I want to solve a business problem (i.e. customers over credit limit have that amount in bold, Orders over 90 days have the due date in RED Bruce
