Well you dont need to do that for any call - just for those who are related to serious methods
and those can easily be kept within a bunch of functionalities ... I am not entirely sure though.

yours
Martin.

2006/8/27, Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
... but passing events up a deeply nested call chain is a pain, isn't it?
it's surely possible, but much more code.

cheers,
ralf.

On 8/27/06, Martin Heidegger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For me, the main point of using exceptions is the possibility to pass
>
>
> > the control up the call chain.
>
>
> I usually use events for those kinds of problems because they are usually
> better for visualisation.
> I mean like:
>
>   .onXmlParseError
>   .onFileNotFound
>   .onConnectionNotPossible
>
> because those are on one hand better readable and on the other hand there is
> better support
> for events than for exceptions. So it matches a little better in my
> workflow. I hide this way the
> problems too from the unnecessary code parts because they just are not going
> to be called.
>
>   .onXmlParseReady -> builtTree (only gets called if everything was fine
>
> yours
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>
>
>


--
Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Flex & Flash Consultant based in Cologne/Germany

_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org



--
ICQ: 117662935
Skype: mastakaneda
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org

Reply via email to