Perhaps. I just wanted to clarify the why, not set any policies :)
--- In [email protected], "Josh McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I still think Container makes more sense in this instance though ;-
)
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Josh McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well if you guys are using it and it works, I suppose that
question is
> > answered :) I've never tried to build a container out of
anything but
> > Container (strangely enough), so I wasn't talking from
experience.
> >
> > Now that I put more thought into it, it does make sense really,
for when
> > you want to build a component that's comprised of a bunch of
other
> > components, without needing to support arbitrary children added
by client
> > code at run time.
> >
> > -J
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Michael Labriola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Josh,
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I also don't agree with the conclusion reached by
> >> that post. Take a look at the code for UIComponent yourself. It
> >> ships with Flex 2 or Flex 3. You can also search for addChild
in the
> >> various components that directly inherit from UIComponent in the
> >> framework, you will see it used often.
> >>
> >> Finally, take a look at any of the custom component I, Doug
McCune
> >> of Eli Greenfield have published. You will notice that the
majority
> >> use UIComponent directly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Labriola
> >>
> >> --- In [email protected] <flexcomponents%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> "Josh McDonald" <dznuts@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Not according to this post a day or so ago:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.mail-
> >> archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]<archive.com%2Fflexcoders%
40yahoogroups.com>
> >> /msg93835.html
> >> >
> >> > Can anybody from Adobe clear this up?
> >> >
> >> > -J
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Michael Labriola <labriola@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > I see a few problems with the code. UIComponent does not
have any
> >> > > default implementations for sizing, display, etc. As Josh
> >> mentions,
> >> > > Container does have these implementations, however, this is
> >> likely
> >> > > overkill for what you need. However, UIComponent.addChild
does
> >> add
> >> > > things to the display list just fine....
> >> > >
> >> > > That said, your ScaleToFitContentHolder class extends
> >> UIComponent.
> >> > > UIComponent does not have an implementation of
updateDisplayList.
> >> > > updateDisplayList is where a component sizes it's children.
> >> > > Therefore anything you add to that content holder is not
going
> >> to go
> >> > > through the normal flex measurement and sizing process.
> >> > >
> >> > > You also call invalidateSize in your code quite a few times,
> >> which
> >> > > would make sense, but your measure methods just call the
super
> >> > > class.... which sets it to 0 width and height unless you set
> >> > > explicit values in the UIComponent default implementation.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, basically, UIComponent is fine, it will work well if you
> >> handle
> >> > > these issues. If you want an implementation that handles
these
> >> > > things (and potentially does a lot of other stuff you don't
need
> >> or
> >> > > want) you could extend Container or one of its descendants.
> >> > >
> >> > > HTH,
> >> > > Labriola
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In [email protected]<flexcomponents%
40yahoogroups.com><flexcomponents%
> >> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> >>
> >> > > "Josh McDonald" <dznuts@>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My Bad buddy, sorry!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > UIComponent.addChild is an inherited Flash thing, not
part of
> >> > > Flex, and when
> >> > > > you use it if it works at all, things don't go into Flex's
> >> display
> >> > > tree
> >> > > > properly, and all sorts of pain ensues. Try extending
Canvas
> >> > > instead of
> >> > > > UIComponent. The magic you need lives in Container.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -J
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Richard Rodseth
<rrodseth@>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I'd love to wrap up this task. Does anyone have any
other
> >> > > suggestions?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Richard Rodseth
> >> > > <rrodseth@<rrodseth%40gmail.com>>
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > I'm afraid I'm still struggling with this. The classes
> >> below
> >> > > work
> >> > > > > > (more or less) if I supply a large button
as "content",
> >> but if
> >> > > I try a
> >> > > > > > VBox it appears to shrink to nothing. Any ideas?
Hopefully
> >> the
> >> > > > > > formatting survived.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > <view:ScaleOrCenterView width="100%" height="100%" >
> >> > > > > > <mx:VBox borderStyle="solid" borderColor="red"
> >> > > > > > horizontalScrollPolicy="off"
verticalScrollPolicy="off">
> >> > > > > > <mx:Button label="Test" width="400" height="400"/>
> >> > > > > > </mx:VBox>
> >> > > > > > </view:ScaleOrCenterView>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [DefaultProperty("content")]
> >> > > > > > public class ScaleOrCenterView extends UIComponent
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > private var _contentHolder:ScaleToFitContentHolder =
new
> >> > > > > > ScaleToFitContentHolder();;
> >> > > > > > private var _content:UIComponent;
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > public function ScaleOrCenterView()
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > super();
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > override protected function createChildren():void {
> >> > > > > > super.createChildren();
> >> > > > > > this.addChild(_contentHolder);
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [Inspectable]
> >> > > > > > public function set content(value:UIComponent):void {
> >> > > > > > if (_content != null) {
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.removeChild(_content);
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > _content = value;
> >> > > > > > if (_content != null) {
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.addChild(_content);
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > this.invalidateSize();
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > override protected function updateDisplayList
> >> > > (unscaledWidth:Number,
> >> > > > > > unscaledHeight:Number):void
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > super.updateDisplayList(unscaledWidth,
unscaledHeight);
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > var contentWidth:Number =
> >> _content.getExplicitOrMeasuredWidth
> >> > > ();
> >> > > > > > var contentHeight:Number =
> >> _content.getExplicitOrMeasuredHeight
> >> > > ();
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > var xScale:Number = (unscaledWidth / contentWidth);
> >> > > > > > var yScale:Number = (unscaledHeight / contentHeight);
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.setActualSize(unscaledWidth,
> >> unscaledHeight);
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.allowInvalidateSize = false;
> >> > > > > > if (xScale < 1 || yScale < 1) {
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.scaleX = xScale
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.scaleY = yScale
> >> > > > > > } else {
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.scaleX = 1.0;
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.scaleY = 1.0;
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > _contentHolder.allowInvalidateSize = true;
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > public class ScaleToFitContentHolder extends
UIComponent
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > public var allowInvalidateSize:Boolean = true;
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > public function ScaleToFitContentHolder()
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > override protected function measure():void
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > super.measure();
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > override public function invalidateSize():void
> >> > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > if (allowInvalidateSize)
> >> > > > > > super.invalidateSize();
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Alex Harui
> >> <aharui@<aharui%
> >> > > 40adobe.com>>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >> One way is to block invalidateSize when scaling the
> >> child. See
> >> > > > > >> ListBaseContentHolder
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> ________________________________
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It
tolls
> >> for
> >> > > thee."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> >> > > > :: 0437 221 380 :: josh@
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It
tolls for
> >> thee."
> >> >
> >> > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> >> > :: 0437 221 380 :: josh@
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls
for thee."
> >
> > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
thee."
>
> :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
