I know what you are thinking when you say .Net webcontrols. It is a pretty good way to thinking about Components when developing applications. But, the big but, if you are going to use Cairngorm it becomes a little different.
The difference is encapsulation becomes more of View, Model, and Command pattern then just self contained WebControls. Thats not to say you will have self contained components that have their own Model,View and Command. Its just that the power is in designing your connections between the Model, View and Commands in such a way that you get components that can be plugged into your Application. So I would encourage encapsulation of a Login mechanism that can work for the "way" you do Logins across the applications you create. Just like if someone made a Login WebControl you would still have to conform to their API of the WebControl. You can do the same thing with Flex and Cairngorm model. It might not be all in one Component but can be a defined API across Model, View (ViewHelper really) and Command/Controller. I even went as far to create a strict encapsulation of my Model, ViewHelpers and Commands such that i could put totally different UIs onto of an application at runtime and still. Its a bit specific, but since it was specific to my features set of the application it works nicely. The main point of me mentioning this is Cairngorm and Flex components are powerful, its up to us to find the powerful ways of putting it all together. Renaun --- In [email protected], "matthew_brailsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many of my dificuilties are down to the fact i'm thinking of things > from a .NET point of view, so i think how can i make a Flex > equivilant of a webcontrol? and what not. > > Web controls are self contained and can hold quite a lot of > functionality whilst maintaining a "plug in" functionality (ie drop > in the dll, and change a few settings in thw web.config) > > Ideally i would have a toolkit of components that can make up the > majority of a systems regular functionality. > > But it looks that if i want to use cairngorm i will have to do what > Andy says create a base platform to build everything on top of. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Michael Schmalle" > <teoti.graphix@> wrote: > > > > Not having anything to do with caringorm; > > > > I think some type of login encapsulation would be considered an > application > > component.or a component of an application. > > > > I think you will see some interesting things start to become > encapsulated in > > the future. The word 'Application' is just to broad and could be > thrown at > > anything that didn't define some lowlevel encapsulation. > > > > In my opinion, component means a design pattern and specific mind > set you > > take when you are defining micro pieces of a system in realtion to > a macro > > system that could be part of an even larger system. > > > > philosophy then kicks in, what are words anyway, components to me > are more > > 'the act of closing sub systems'. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 7/28/06, matthew_brailsford <matt@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks guys, > > > > > > You've been a big help, and confirmed what i thought was > probabley > > > the case. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcomponents% > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "Andrew Trice" > > > > > > <andrew.trice@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You *could*, but it wouldn't really fit with the cairngorm > > > architecture. > > > > I'd recommend just creating common views/commands for login > > > > functionality, and just reusing those per project. You could > > > create a > > > > base project that you use as a template for future projects > that > > > > includes a basic setup of caringorm and any common elements > (such > > > as a > > > > login). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________ > > > > > > > > Andrew Trice > > > > > > > > Cynergy Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > http://www.cynergysystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.cynergysystems.com/blogs/page/andrewtrice > > > > > > > > Email: andrew.trice@ > > > > > > > > > > > Office: 866-CYNERGY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <flexcomponents% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > [mailto:[email protected]<flexcomponents% > 40yahoogroups.com>] > > > On Behalf Of > > > matthew_brailsford > > > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:44 AM > > > > To: [email protected] <flexcomponents% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > Subject: [flexcomponents] Re: Cairngorm Components? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you wouldn't be able to encapsulate the business/command > side > > > of > > > > things? > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcomponents% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > <mailto:flexcomponents%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stefan Schmalhaus" > > > > > > > <stefan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We create many different solutions, all of which will have > a > > > log > > > > in, > > > > > > so how would you encapsulate the login functionality so > that > > > you > > > > > > could just re-use it per project? > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand the Cairngorm concept, a "login > component" > > > > > could only be a view (based on a Panel with username/password > > > text > > > > > fields, a login button etc.) that can be used in a > ViewStack, for > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What goes up, does come down. > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
