Gordon Smith wrote: > > > Why would you think that a book called "actionscript 3 animation" > uses only only > > flash.* classes throughout and avoids the mx.* classes completely ? > > It was just a guess, because the title didn't include the word "Flex". > Are you saying that this book actually does use mx.* classes?
No it doesn't.You were correct, I just wondered how you would know. Thanks for the explanations.I still don't understand why there's no example of drawing a shape in the flex documentation that doesn't use flash.* classes. I understand that the flash.* and sprite based examples can be children in a flex application, but you seem to be saying that shapes can be created without those classes. If not, then maybe I misunderstood when you said to start with the flex classes. Maybe you were saying, in effect not to start with shapes. It that correct ? > > > Doesn't Flex use actionscript 3? > > Yes. As I said, you write AS3 to use both the flash.* classes (which > are actually implemented in C++) and the mx.* classes (which are > themselves implemented in AS3). And, as I said, the former are > low-level classes built into the Player while the latter are > high-level classes provided with the Flex framework which get linked > into your SWF. > > > Doesn't it do animation? > > Yes, it can "do" animation. In fact, Flex's mx.effects.* classes ARE > animation classes. But we didn't create Flex to make it easier to make > balls move around the stage. The focus of Flex is not Flash-style > animations and games, although some developers use it to create just > that. Flex is really focused on building Rich Internet Applications, > and we provide the most common components that are necessary to do > that... things like ComboBox, DataGrid, DateChooser, etc. > > Gordon Smith > Adobe Flex SDK Team
