[Flashcoders] how to build a user forum in Flash
[sending this again -- can anyone help with this? thanks!] I'm sure this has been covered, but can't seem to find it in any search. Where can I find a script (free or by license) to create a Flash-based, online user forum? It should have the ability to accept messages by thread, archive them by thread, and search/display them by message header or thread. This will be a low-traffic environment (probably under a dozen visitors at any given time). Thanks, Marc ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Flash and ASP/MSSQL
You would need to call a javascript function from AS when the user clicks the inside swf and set the value of a hidden form field.. then the user can click the HTML send button and send everything. On Oct 30, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Amanda Kuek wrote: Hello everyone, This is a question about Flash in an ASP form which communicates with an MSSQL db. I'm not really sure how to phrase the question, so I'm afraid that I'll just have to explain the story. Imagine an ASP page about faulty garments. Let's just say that if you had a hole in your T-shirt, you could visit this page to report it. The page would have normal HTML fields for name and email, and it would also have a SWF with a picture of a T-shirt. The disgruntled hole-y user clicks on the T-shirt to leave an X representing where the hole is. The form information (including that of the hole location, in the SWF) is then submitted using a normal HTML submit button and stored in the MSSQL db. I spose my question is, is this scenario possible? Is it only possible to store user-submitted information (in this case, the X,Y coordinates of the hole) by clicking on a "Send" button WITHIN flash, or is there another way? I'd like to avoid making a user explicitly submit the SWF information AS WELL AS the form information. Any ideas and comments much appreciated, Thanks muchly, Amanda. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] Flash and ASP/MSSQL
Hello everyone, This is a question about Flash in an ASP form which communicates with an MSSQL db. I'm not really sure how to phrase the question, so I'm afraid that I'll just have to explain the story. Imagine an ASP page about faulty garments. Let's just say that if you had a hole in your T-shirt, you could visit this page to report it. The page would have normal HTML fields for name and email, and it would also have a SWF with a picture of a T-shirt. The disgruntled hole-y user clicks on the T-shirt to leave an X representing where the hole is. The form information (including that of the hole location, in the SWF) is then submitted using a normal HTML submit button and stored in the MSSQL db. I spose my question is, is this scenario possible? Is it only possible to store user-submitted information (in this case, the X,Y coordinates of the hole) by clicking on a "Send" button WITHIN flash, or is there another way? I'd like to avoid making a user explicitly submit the SWF information AS WELL AS the form information. Any ideas and comments much appreciated, Thanks muchly, Amanda. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
use setTimeout now and you dont need to worry about interval ids. e.dolecki On Oct 29, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Weyert de Boer wrote: JOR wrote: At first glance it looks like you have a potential continuous loop issue? stopwatchComplete() >> questionComplete() >> stopwatchComplete() >> and so on if (id >= questions.length) Second is I don't see where "id" is defined in questionComplete() did you mean to type this instead: The id should ofcourse matched the correct name of the parameter. If you know a better way please let me know! if ( questionId >= questions.length ) Aha, good one I will try ;-) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
That's a very long keyword. But yes, that's crucial. I decided to write it up so I wouldn't forget again that it's only the mask that requires a reverse cutout: http://flash-creations.com/notes/dynamic_drawingapi.php#cutout Helen Navneet Behal wrote: Ah.. reading the code again along with your post I realize the AOL Keyword is "BEFORE the end fill is applied" which is necessary to make the cut-out. Got it... thanks again. Regards, Navneet ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] > Xml parsing object
Thanks! I will have a look :-) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] > Xml parsing object
Check out Sephiroth's XML2Object class : http://www.sephiroth.it/file_detail.php?id=129 very nice and easy to use. Weyert de Boer wrote: Does anyone got some nice object/method that transforms a xml data from a xml object into a nice object graph? I would like to ask (trying to avoid reinventing the wheel) before I am starting writing my own solution for parsing xml data into a structure for easier reference. Yours, Weyert de Boer ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Ah.. reading the code again along with your post I realize the AOL Keyword is "BEFORE the end fill is applied" which is necessary to make the cut-out. Got it... thanks again. Regards, Navneet - Original Message - From: "Helen Triolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut? Here's one I just made (and tested) from a draw circle prototype that then draws another circle in reverse (before the endfill is applied -- necessary to get a cutout): Helen -- ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Re: Newbie AS3 question
The order is based on inheritance, or #initclip order, which is based on
which classes is nested where. #initclip won't work, though, if you're
class doesn't extend MovieClip, and if you don't extend something, you have
to rely on the compiler. As such, you'll have to utilize an instance, at
least via a depend variable inside the class:
private var depend:OtherClassINeed;
I can see what you mean, though, how that gives very little control, and
isn't really flexible.
- Original Message -
From: "A.Cicak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Re: Newbie AS3 question
Yes, but how do you know order of construction of static clases, if you have
more each one init depends on other?
"JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you utilize a static function, it would be called when the class itself
is created in ActionScript, before frame 1 even runs:
class Test
{
static var inited = InitThisTest();
}
Why wouldn't that solve it?
- Original Message -
From: "A.Cicak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:59 AM
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Problem with JasterXL's class is initialization. For example if you had to
initialize something in that class you should make static method called
InitCurrencyFormatter(). But when to call it? If other classes are using
CurrencyFormatter than you should ensure to call InitCurrencyFormatter()
before construction of any class which uses it is called. But what if
InitCurrencyFormatter also depends on some other class which is made just
with static methods (like JasterXL's). In that case that other class would
have to have InitOtherClass() and it also should be called before other
objects are constructed and before InitCurrencyFormatter. Now imagine 20
classes like that and thousands of lines of code depending on them, it would
be almost impossible to keep track when to initialize any of these classes,
and it would be very error prone (you change order of execution and you
start using uninitialized objects). If you make these classes singletons you
don't have that problem, because when you call getInstance() if object was
not initialized getInstance will call new and that will call its constructor
( which now replaces InitCurrencyFormatter, InitOtherClass, etc..) and it
will ensure that all objects are initialized at time of their use, and you
do not have to worry about order of execution.
"Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
[Flashcoders] Open Source Flash MMORPG
I've ben working on-and-off, though mostly off, on a MMORPG/Roguelike hybrid for a long time now, and would really like to get a team working with me so that I have some impetus to actually get serious on it. I will be open sourcing all the code base (both the AS and backend), and, once at the prototype stage, hope to form a company to run some servers hosting enhanced versions of the game. I'll be happy to share more information with people with serious interest in the project -- just email me. I'd welcome any comments about remote collaboration on coding Flash projects, but they should probably go here on this list, as they are widely applicable. For more information on roguelikes, if they are unfamiliar: www.nethack.org http://roguelikes.sauceforge.net/pub/index.html -Mark Hawley -- John Mark Hawley The Nilbog Group 773.968.4980 (cell) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
"this" can also be used to refer an instance's member variable explicitly.
Since scoping rules allow for a local variable (in a method) to be named the
same as an instance member variable, "this" is required to differentiate
between the two.
(Sorry about the html mail)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of A.Cicak
Sent: Fri 28/10/2005 6:32 PM
To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Cc:
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Well, I dont agree, "this" keyword refers to current class, so its only
more
typing to include it, and making code less
readable. Only reason keyword "this" exists is if you want to pass
reference
to current object somewhere, in which case
you must use "this". To me using "this" in your code makes you look like
wannabe-programmer, :) But I gues its matter of taste. btw, old VB does
not
have "this" keyword, and if you were reffering to VB(.NET), it is more
OOP
and more complex than AS3, so I gues programmers in VB.NET (if there are
some, since C# is there) are not wannabe-programmers :)
"ryanm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> What I don't get is why it needs "this.addChild" instead of just
>> addChild. I've been sick of the keyword "this" for a long time and
have
>> since avoided it in AS2.
>>
>> Any reason that it needs to be back in for AS3?
>>
>Maybe because it's one of the most useful scope references ever
> invented?
>
>The fundamental concept that you seem to miss is that "addChild" is
> meaningless by itself, it is a method of an object (in proper OOP
> development), and if you just say "addChild", who is adding the
child? You
> need a reference. You could do it like this if you like:
>
> class Game extends MovieClip {
>var world:MovieClip;
>var bg:MovieClip;
>function Game(){
>var GameReference:Game = this;
>world = new MovieClip();
>
>GameReference.addChild( world );
>
>bg = new MovieClip();
>world.addChild( bg );
>}
> }
>
>The point is, you shouldn't use functions that aren't attached to
> objects, it's bad form, and it's thoroughlly confusing to people who
later
> have to maintain your code. Besides, it makes you look like one of
those
> wannabe-programmer VB guys. ;-)
>
> ryanm
> ___
> Flashcoders mailing list
> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
cut the ring with a 1 pixel line, then it's like a c with a pixel opening. You could do this with the drawing api, but if the split shows too badly you might need to patch it -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Navneet Behal Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:54 AM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut? After putting a couple of hours on the problem, I am still in a daze on how would one go about making a doughnut shape (circle with cut-out in the center) using the drawing API. I'm not talking about drawing a circle using: lineStyle(BIGNUMBERHERE, color, alpha); I'd like to put in a gradient fill into a doughnut shape. And it has to be a doughnut, not a simulation of it (ie. not by drawing 2 circles over each other and keeping the center cirlce the same as the background color). Real dunkin' doughnut! Any ideas? Thanks for your time. Regards, Navneet ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] Re: Re: Newbie AS3 question
Yes, but how do you know order of construction of static clases, if you have
more each one init depends on other?
"JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you utilize a static function, it would be called when the class itself
is created in ActionScript, before frame 1 even runs:
class Test
{
static var inited = InitThisTest();
}
Why wouldn't that solve it?
- Original Message -
From: "A.Cicak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:59 AM
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Problem with JasterXL's class is initialization. For example if you had to
initialize something in that class you should make static method called
InitCurrencyFormatter(). But when to call it? If other classes are using
CurrencyFormatter than you should ensure to call InitCurrencyFormatter()
before construction of any class which uses it is called. But what if
InitCurrencyFormatter also depends on some other class which is made just
with static methods (like JasterXL's). In that case that other class would
have to have InitOtherClass() and it also should be called before other
objects are constructed and before InitCurrencyFormatter. Now imagine 20
classes like that and thousands of lines of code depending on them, it would
be almost impossible to keep track when to initialize any of these classes,
and it would be very error prone (you change order of execution and you
start using uninitialized objects). If you make these classes singletons you
don't have that problem, because when you call getInstance() if object was
not initialized getInstance will call new and that will call its constructor
( which now replaces InitCurrencyFormatter, InitOtherClass, etc..) and it
will ensure that all objects are initialized at time of their use, and you
do not have to worry about order of execution.
"Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
> > private static var socket;
> >
> > public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
> > {
> > url = p_url;
> > port = p_port;
> > socket = new Socket();
> > socket.connect(url, port);
> > }
> >
> > public static function getData()
> > {
> > // Simple function that gets something from the server.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then to use:
> >
> > ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton i
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
ryanm wrote: > You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in AS2, right? Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference between the two. Not quite. What it means is that the "this" is assumed, which is not always what you want. You can force class scope by including "this", but there's no way to do the opposite. Local (or class) scope always obscures global scope, that's just a fact of life. The only exception is built-in function like trace and eval, which normally obscure everything else. That's probably part of the reason AS3 is more heavily based around namespaces - you can more clearly state what scope you want if everything resides in a unique namespace. That takes us back to the point about whether you should include "this" everywhere - doing so is akin to including the fully qualified name of every class instead of just importing the package. Which is easier to read? - Robert ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Of course there exists edge cases where that isnt feasible, but most programs dont implement DES algorithms (to relate this to an earlier post) and a lot of legacy code i have worked with has benefitted from being re-factored. I actually do have classes with methods so large that I had to make a base class containing only that method and then extend it (because of the size limit imposed by Flash), but as was mentioned, they are mostly encryption or compression classes, and are special cases. ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
All that to say, if your going to be putting "this" in front of every class member in AS2 and in AS3 you'll be missing the neat advantage of simplicity. As it were, the classes I write are rarely self-referential. Properties such as position, visibility, etc, are usually handled elsewhere or by other means rather than directly referring to itself, so you won't find "this" in my code a lot either. When it does appear it is the rare exception, not the rule, but by the same token, you also won't find referenceless method calls either. I very, very rarely put something like "this._visible=false;" in a constructor, and usually only because it's a quickie, one-off project that won't need to be maintained, and even if maintenance is required, there is usually only one class to deal with and everything is right there. But when I do something like that, I always use "this", just so that it's clear what I'm referring to. You also rarely find _parent references in my code, because usually when I need a reference to the parent, I pass that reference in at creation time and store it as a member variable in the class. If it's not important enough to be a member of the class, then it probably isn't necessary, and if it's necessary, it's important enough to be a member. So really, "this" is the only ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Hey ryanm,
Imagine this:
class MyClass {
private var myName:String;
public function MyClass(myName:String) {
this.myName = myName
}
}
Or:
class MyClass {
public function MyClass(myEventDispatcher) {
var myListener = new Object();
myListener.controler = this;
myListener.click = function (eventObj) {
this.controler.onMyClick(eventObj);
}
myEventDispatcher.addEventListener("click", myListener);
}
public function onMyClick (eventObj) {
}
}
Naturally you can use the Delegate object instead of creating an anonymous
function, but the fact states that those are moments you absolutely need to
use "this" and good practice is about using them when you need them / When
you want to write them everywhere, it's really the programmers choice to
write it as he wishes but he should think of future programmers that might
go into that code, they might not want to scroll horizontally that much to
read the code, it just makes lines shorter and easier to read, if well
written.
Now you're saying that the compiler adds "this" everywhere or almost... Well
this is more like the pre-compiler's job, and this is why it actually
exists. The idea is to write human readable ECMA script that isn't too
cluttered, that the pre-compiler can arrange for the compiler to compile. If
we didn't have the pre-compiler we'd be writing a lot of code with a lot of
"this" everywhere and we wouldn't be able to forget to put a semi-column at
the end of each line :P (a bit like PHP)
On the other side, in AS1 when creating your classes it is about 100%
necessary to specify "this" in front of instance properties or methods.
Things have changed in AS2 and their closer to what standard OOP programming
should look like. If you look in the world of JAVA, you won't find extensive
usage of the "this" statement like you seem to be saying. But it is really
the programmer's discretion to use "this" as he wishes when he doesn't HAVE
to use it; nobody should blame someone for using "this" anytime except if it
does something that is not meant to be.
When programmers modify code, removing the "this" statements everywhere when
going threw somebody's code like your saying, they should be aware of what
this might involve, and it's not the fault of the programmer that put all
those "this" statements, it's the fault of the one that removed them I'd
say. Common sense! So I wouldn't really be annoyed by reading your code that
has "this", everywhere it can be used at. It's ok and so be it.
All that to say, if your going to be putting "this" in front of every class
member in AS2 and in AS3 you'll be missing the neat advantage of simplicity.
I think it's a question of trusting how Flash will get compiled and how it
will run it! Trust ECMA script and know what you're coding, if it's AS1, use
lots of "this"; if your in pure AS2, lighten the number of characters in
your file if you may!:) Let's not even mention AS3, since it's even more a
question of cleaning up your code and making it human readable and OO. Using
"this" everywhere would ruin the fun of writing AS2 and AS3.
And yes there are cases in AS2 where your class method might need "this" in
front of all methods and members it uses; this is mostly the case if you're
redirecting methods to other classes with their prototype, thus returning to
the world of AS1.
Cheers,
Fredz./
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ryanm
Sent: October 29, 2005 3:39 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
> The idea is to use it (this) when you have two variables with the same
> name, usually to distinguish between the class member and a locally
> declared variable. You must know that :) The compiler won't know to
> use "this" or not in those cases, so it is important to use it in those
> contexts.
>
Actually, the compiler *does* know, it always adds "this." to references
without explicitly stated scope.
Which brings us full circle, all the way back to maintainability. Now,
if you have a class, and all of the member functions and variables are
referenceless (using "assumed" scope without the this reference), and all of
a sudden, in the middle of a method, you have a this reference because of a
potential scope conflict, what does a developer looking at your code 2 years
after you've left the job think about it? Does he remove the single this
reference, to make it more readable and consistent, thus breaking the method
and blowing up the whole project, all without knowing how or why? Martin
piped up with "I would refactor the method to make it more readable..."
immediately, which, in this case, would've broken the method (if he removed
the reference) and possibly the whole class, which is exactly how these sort
of expensive, time consuming, and difficult to troubleshoot problems come
up. On the other hand, if the original developer used the this reference
every time, it would alrea
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
ryanm wrote: The idea is to use it (this) when you have two variables with the same name, usually to distinguish between the class member and a locally declared variable. You must know that :) The compiler won't know to use "this" or not in those cases, so it is important to use it in those contexts. Actually, the compiler *does* know, it always adds "this." to references without explicitly stated scope. Which brings us full circle, all the way back to maintainability. Now, if you have a class, and all of the member functions and variables are referenceless (using "assumed" scope without the this reference), and all of a sudden, in the middle of a method, you have a this reference because of a potential scope conflict, what does a developer looking at your code 2 years after you've left the job think about it? Does he remove the single this reference, to make it more readable and consistent, thus breaking the method and blowing up the whole project, all without knowing how or why? Martin piped up with "I would refactor the method to make it more readable..." immediately, which, in this case, would've broken the method (if he removed the reference) and possibly the whole class, which is exactly how these sort of expensive, time consuming, and difficult to troubleshoot problems come up. On the other hand, if the original developer used the this reference every time, it would already be consistent, readable, and explicit about scope. The other question is, would Martin (not to pick on Martin, but he was vocal about it, so I use him as an example) take a class that stated scope explicitly and remove all the this references, possibly breaking the class in the process? It sounds like it, from his post. The question is, is that a good practice or a bad practice, and does that make him a "good" developer, or a "bad" one, given the potential for expensive and time consuming breakage caused solely by his dislike for the keyword this? Its ok, you can pick on me, i dont mind ;) I'll take each piece seperately. 1. Removing the single 'this' reference. well no, i wouldnt remove it because i know why its there. If the method was long and could / should be refactored, then that is what i would do. Of course there exists edge cases where that isnt feasible, but most programs dont implement DES algorithms (to relate this to an earlier post) and a lot of legacy code i have worked with has benefitted from being re-factored. If i see one 'this' reference among a series of unspecified local references then I would look at it carefully and think that the programmer had good cause to specify the scope in that case. One 'this' reference doesnt have much of an impact on readability but using it everywhere does, as Jesse highlighted. I would rarely advocate becoming dogmatic about any technique, *always* do this or *always* do that, because its not often an all or nothing decision. Of course, in some far off dreamland this code would also have unit tests so that if i did refactor it or unthinkingly removed the one reference to 'this' then a nice little red bar would tell me id done something bad, but again, im realistic, most code doesnt have unit tests. :) 2. Removing all references to 'this' in supplied code. It really depends on the level of maintenance im expected to undertake with the legacy code. If it was just a minor bugfix or two, or some tweak then i would be inclined to save myself the effort and just do what is required (i.e. leave the extraneous references to 'this' intact). If the code required some major work then I would remove the references to this, except where necessary. Like i stated in my first post about this subject, sometimes its necessary and i know when that is. Most of the time it isnt and personally i feel that it clutters the code. One more thing worth mentioning, and I don't say this to be rude or as a slight to anyone on this list, but the opinion that the this reference is bad and should be avoided seems to be unilaterally coming from people who learned programming in Flash, while the opinion that scope should be stated explicitly seems to be coming from people with more formal training in software development and experience in (non-Flash) real world development. Personally, I have to give more weight to the opinions of people with more formal training and more varied real-world experience, because there are some things you just can't learn in a year or two of using Flash for web development. Unless you are a mind reader or have access to information about each poster that is in this discussion then i would say that its a dangerous and false generalization. I initially learnt my programming way back in the mists of time, before flash was but a glint in some guys eye, and have had my fair share of formal training and developed in non-flash 'real world situations', but in my opinion that isnt really relev
[Flashcoders] > Xml parsing object
Does anyone got some nice object/method that transforms a xml data from a xml object into a nice object graph? I would like to ask (trying to avoid reinventing the wheel) before I am starting writing my own solution for parsing xml data into a structure for easier reference. Yours, Weyert de Boer ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Still weirding me out. To me part of the appeal of working with movieclips is their inherent hierarchy, which makes a kind of basic sense that's easy to grasp. To a Flash developer who understands Flash and has been working with it for a long time, that's true. To anyone coming from another language or platform, it makes no sense at all. It is also extremely limiting, and more flexxibility at the cost of an extra line of code is a beautiful trade off in my book. I'm guessing part of why we're waiting til Flash 9 for this stuff is because it doesn't make immediate sense in a Flash IDE context yet. A movie clip is still a movie clip, but now, instead of being the basic unit of Flash, there are smaller units, such as sprites, displayobjects, etc. More granualrity means more control, but it also means a few extra lines of code. ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
> You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in AS2, right? Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference between the two. Not quite. What it means is that the "this" is assumed, which is not always what you want. And if you need the reference sometimes and other times it is extraneous, why not use it all the time for the sake of consistency? ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it Spike! That's that whole maintainability thing, which, in commercial software, is usually just as or even more important than efficiency and optimization. Incidentally, the way I handled that particular example was by making a single dynamic class that can be instantiated as a particular locale, or can change locales with a single method call, with a common set of functions and loadable locale defenitions, which was instantiated in a singleton "enviornment" class. That way, there is only ever one application "enviornment", but potentially several different locales that can be used to format dates and numbers through a common interface. It was way easier than making 276 static classes for all the locales I had to support. ;-) ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
The idea is to use it (this) when you have two variables with the same name, usually to distinguish between the class member and a locally declared variable. You must know that :) The compiler won't know to use "this" or not in those cases, so it is important to use it in those contexts. Actually, the compiler *does* know, it always adds "this." to references without explicitly stated scope. Which brings us full circle, all the way back to maintainability. Now, if you have a class, and all of the member functions and variables are referenceless (using "assumed" scope without the this reference), and all of a sudden, in the middle of a method, you have a this reference because of a potential scope conflict, what does a developer looking at your code 2 years after you've left the job think about it? Does he remove the single this reference, to make it more readable and consistent, thus breaking the method and blowing up the whole project, all without knowing how or why? Martin piped up with "I would refactor the method to make it more readable..." immediately, which, in this case, would've broken the method (if he removed the reference) and possibly the whole class, which is exactly how these sort of expensive, time consuming, and difficult to troubleshoot problems come up. On the other hand, if the original developer used the this reference every time, it would already be consistent, readable, and explicit about scope. The other question is, would Martin (not to pick on Martin, but he was vocal about it, so I use him as an example) take a class that stated scope explicitly and remove all the this references, possibly breaking the class in the process? It sounds like it, from his post. The question is, is that a good practice or a bad practice, and does that make him a "good" developer, or a "bad" one, given the potential for expensive and time consuming breakage caused solely by his dislike for the keyword this? In my opinion (and in the opinion of many much more competent developers than myself), it is always good to be explicit about scope, because it removes any ambiguity from the code, drastically reducing the possibility of expensive and time consuming breakage during maintenance. One more thing worth mentioning, and I don't say this to be rude or as a slight to anyone on this list, but the opinion that the this reference is bad and should be avoided seems to be unilaterally coming from people who learned programming in Flash, while the opinion that scope should be stated explicitly seems to be coming from people with more formal training in software development and experience in (non-Flash) real world development. Personally, I have to give more weight to the opinions of people with more formal training and more varied real-world experience, because there are some things you just can't learn in a year or two of using Flash for web development. There is a reason that experienced developers like to type those extra 5 characters, and it is to save time, money, and the embarrasment of explaining to your boss that you deleted something without fully understanding the implications. ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Frédéric v. Bochmann wrote: Happy to hear you solved your problems, including the height of your slider was essential too :) Happy you spotted that one yourself! :D Now the arrow, what you're saying is the simplest way. Something that might be interesting for you to try to implement is to have the scrollContent update its position in an onEnterFrame instead of using an onMouseMove, if that is what you're doing at the moment. Using onEnterFrame will obviously include a little delay in your scrolled content, but it will lighten up your CPU usage if what you are scrolling is huge and heavy (Don't forget to call onEnterFrame() just before assigning it back to null). So what I would say is create a function called updateContent which will have the math's you already have. And make sure to set the onEnterFrame when the user is scrolling and assign it back to null when the user is finished scrolling. When you use the arrows, simply move the slider by the height of your slider or so, with some validations and call the updateContent method :) You're on the right path :) Thanks for that, I will be trying to implement the above tomorrow afternoon. With luck you wont hear from me ;> ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Obfuscation... Was: SWF Decompilers
I had an idea. Not sure if it's a good one.
Flash is pretty good with optimizing all local var names to shorter ones
like _1 and _2 which does make decompiled code a bit tougher to read.
What if I took it just a step further and in one or two of my main
classes I added something like this:
/**
* Fake function to deter decompiling
* Function not actually used by class.
**/
public var handleComputations () {
// Maybe 10 or 20 lines of nonsensical but compileable
// code using the local vars so that variable
// names appear to be used inside this function but
// this function isn't actually ever called by the class.
// Maybe use uncommon routines with some bit shifts
// and complex mathmatical equations to make it look scary.
}
Overall it might make the swf 1KB or so bigger but might be worth it if
it added a frustrating day or two to a decompiler especially if they
don't figure out right away that the function is never called.
Any thoughts?
JOR
___
=== James O'Reilly
===
=== SynergyMedia, Inc.
=== www.synergymedia.net
Mike Duguid wrote:
yep still works
On 10/28/05, Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Question:
BTW, anyone knows if __bytecode__() is supported in Flash 8 (I'm still
using MX 2004 Pro)?
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Happy to hear you solved your problems, including the height of your slider
was essential too :) Happy you spotted that one yourself! :D
Now the arrow, what you're saying is the simplest way.
Something that might be interesting for you to try to implement is to have
the scrollContent update its position in an onEnterFrame instead of using an
onMouseMove, if that is what you're doing at the moment. Using onEnterFrame
will obviously include a little delay in your scrolled content, but it will
lighten up your CPU usage if what you are scrolling is huge and heavy (Don't
forget to call onEnterFrame() just before assigning it back to null).
So what I would say is create a function called updateContent which will
have the math's you already have. And make sure to set the onEnterFrame when
the user is scrolling and assign it back to null when the user is finished
scrolling. When you use the arrows, simply move the slider by the height of
your slider or so, with some validations and call the updateContent method
:)
You're on the right path :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent
Humphrey
Sent: October 29, 2005 2:05 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Frédéric v. Bochmann wrote:
> I forgot something...true.
> Change it to something like:
>
> var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height;
> var heightToScroll = currentChild._height -
> currentChildContainerMask._height;
> if(heightToScroll < 0) {
> heightToScroll = 0;
> }
> currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * heightToScroll;
>
>
> Where currentChildContainerMask._ height is the height of the Mask that is
> masking your currentChild, or simply the height of the outline that is
> representing the visible area of your currentChild as its being scrolled.
> So basically heightToScroll is equal to the height of your currentChild
that
> is invisible to the user, it's the part you want to be able to scroll for.
>
> Hope that helps :)
> Fredz./
Cool, that's working properly now.
var offset = 108;
var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / (scrollBar.track._height-30);
var heightToScroll = currentChild._height - whichMask._height;
if(heightToScroll < 0) {
heightToScroll = 0;
}
currentChild._y = (- scrollRatio * heightToScroll) +offset;
the (scrollBar.track._height-30) is because the slider is 30 tall, and so it
never goes beyond scrollBar.track._height-30. The slider is non-proportional
at
the moment.
I was thinking it wasn't working, until I realised that I was cheating with
the
height of the mask, and hiding it behind a solid white block at the bottom
of
the screen!
Once I've got that sorted, I just need to make the slider move when I click
on
the arrows. What is the best way to do that? Make the arrows move the
slider,
and then update the content as before?
Thanks for all your help :>
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Frédéric v. Bochmann wrote:
I forgot something...true.
Change it to something like:
var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height;
var heightToScroll = currentChild._height -
currentChildContainerMask._height;
if(heightToScroll < 0) {
heightToScroll = 0;
}
currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * heightToScroll;
Where currentChildContainerMask._ height is the height of the Mask that is
masking your currentChild, or simply the height of the outline that is
representing the visible area of your currentChild as its being scrolled.
So basically heightToScroll is equal to the height of your currentChild that
is invisible to the user, it's the part you want to be able to scroll for.
Hope that helps :)
Fredz./
Cool, that's working properly now.
var offset = 108;
var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / (scrollBar.track._height-30);
var heightToScroll = currentChild._height - whichMask._height;
if(heightToScroll < 0) {
heightToScroll = 0;
}
currentChild._y = (- scrollRatio * heightToScroll) +offset;
the (scrollBar.track._height-30) is because the slider is 30 tall, and so it
never goes beyond scrollBar.track._height-30. The slider is non-proportional at
the moment.
I was thinking it wasn't working, until I realised that I was cheating with the
height of the mask, and hiding it behind a solid white block at the bottom of
the screen!
Once I've got that sorted, I just need to make the slider move when I click on
the arrows. What is the best way to do that? Make the arrows move the slider,
and then update the content as before?
Thanks for all your help :>
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Solution is quite simple ;-) Flash drawing / fill methods use XOR logic. Here's what you want (swf and code): http://gousable.com/flash/temp/doughnut1.html frcfc> Navneet Behal wrote: >> After putting a couple of hours on the problem, I am still in a daze >> on how would one go about making a doughnut shape (circle with cut-out >> in the center) using the drawing API. >> >> I'm not talking about drawing a circle using: >> >> lineStyle(BIGNUMBERHERE, color, alpha); >> >> I'd like to put in a gradient fill into a doughnut shape. And it has >> to be a doughnut, not a simulation of it (ie. not by drawing 2 circles >> over each other and keeping the center cirlce the same as the >> background color). Real dunkin' doughnut! >> >> Any ideas? >> >> >> -- Best regards, Gregorymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
I probably don't use the word "Singleton" enough since I've often had to deal with graphic artist or project managers that want to know a bit but not too much and that don't necessarily know that much about programming. Phrasing what your class does makes more sense for them than hearing you say the world Singleton, but having them learn those words as Flash evolves makes it interesting to use them now, but still... It really depends to whom your talking I think :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: October 29, 2005 1:35 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question Had I been formerly trained in programming, I'm sure I would of known what a Singleton was years ago, and called it such before AS1 was called AS1. However, since I had to learn how to code as well as advanced programming concepts at the same time, coupled by the fact ActionScript evolves so fast, thats why. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 1:18 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question True, nobody called that a Singleton until half way threw AS2. I think I still don't use that word often enough. I often use something like "a global object to manage..." and that often suffices for people to understand how the implementation might have been done. What's interesting with all this evolution of AS, is that, as it evolves real OOP terms are being used more and more in our everyday Flash vocabulary and that hence makes us look up those terms or simply make us remember of those terms which brings us to better implement our code. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: October 29, 2005 12:48 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*) Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'
Re: [Flashcoders] File under BIZARRE: FIXED
well, i use xp, firefox1.0.7/IE6, 8.5debug and i got the freezing. moving my trackpad didnt unfreeze it but i don't have a mouse hooked up. On 10/28/05, Rich Rodecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > i dont know about the bug but you should look into flashObject for the > detection: http://blog.deconcept.com/flashobject/ > > > > On 10/28/05, Buck Ruckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry for hijacking the list with this problem today, folks. > > > > When we installed the Flash 8 Player on the broken machines, the problem > > was > > solved. > > > > Conclusion: my game aggravated a bug in Flash Player 7 in IE. > > > > Does that sound accurate? > > > > - Ryan Creighton > > > > > > (PS if that DOES sound accurate, can someone please point me to the most > > > recent and tastiest Flash 8 detection script so's i can force all of my > > users to experience the joys of a working game? Thanks!!) > > > > _ > > Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft(r) > SmartScreen > > Technology > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN(r) Premium right now and get the > > first two months FREE*. > > > > ___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
I forgot something...true.
Change it to something like:
var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height;
var heightToScroll = currentChild._height -
currentChildContainerMask._height;
if(heightToScroll < 0) {
heightToScroll = 0;
}
currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * heightToScroll;
Where currentChildContainerMask._ height is the height of the Mask that is
masking your currentChild, or simply the height of the outline that is
representing the visible area of your currentChild as its being scrolled.
So basically heightToScroll is equal to the height of your currentChild that
is invisible to the user, it's the part you want to be able to scroll for.
Hope that helps :)
Fredz./
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent
Humphrey
Sent: October 29, 2005 1:27 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
>> Now for your script, I don't usually go that way of doing it so here
>> is how
>> I'd probably do it myself:
>>
>> var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height;
>> currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * currentChild._height;
>>
>> I'm not 100% sure but I think this should work. Notice the negative value
>> for the currentChild._y.
>
>
> Thanks, I'll see how that behaves.
Well, it's giving me more consistant results across my different clips, but
it's
scrolling too far, leaving whitespace at the bottom. Any ideas?
Logically, I think the scrollRatio must be too high, because it's scrolling
further than it should.
I've added an offset because the top of the scrolling area is not the top of
the
screen.
var offset = 108;
var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.track._height;
currentChild._y = (- scrollRatio * currentChild._height) + offset;
I'll write some code to make the offset dynamic later.
To see the script in action, go here - http://fari.kentandangela.com and
browse
to Gallery -> Woodcarvings.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Had I been formerly trained in programming, I'm sure I would of known what a Singleton was years ago, and called it such before AS1 was called AS1. However, since I had to learn how to code as well as advanced programming concepts at the same time, coupled by the fact ActionScript evolves so fast, thats why. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 1:18 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question True, nobody called that a Singleton until half way threw AS2. I think I still don't use that word often enough. I often use something like "a global object to manage..." and that often suffices for people to understand how the implementation might have been done. What's interesting with all this evolution of AS, is that, as it evolves real OOP terms are being used more and more in our everyday Flash vocabulary and that hence makes us look up those terms or simply make us remember of those terms which brings us to better implement our code. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: October 29, 2005 12:48 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*) Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > > than > > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton > pattern. > > > > > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___
Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Now for your script, I don't usually go that way of doing it so here is how I'd probably do it myself: var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height; currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * currentChild._height; I'm not 100% sure but I think this should work. Notice the negative value for the currentChild._y. Thanks, I'll see how that behaves. Well, it's giving me more consistant results across my different clips, but it's scrolling too far, leaving whitespace at the bottom. Any ideas? Logically, I think the scrollRatio must be too high, because it's scrolling further than it should. I've added an offset because the top of the scrolling area is not the top of the screen. var offset = 108; var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.track._height; currentChild._y = (- scrollRatio * currentChild._height) + offset; I'll write some code to make the offset dynamic later. To see the script in action, go here - http://fari.kentandangela.com and browse to Gallery -> Woodcarvings. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Too cumbersome to make a simple donut, isn't it :) But thanks for the suggestion JOR.. Helen came up with a pretty elegant one. Regards, Navneet - Original Message - From: "JOR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut? How about making the doughnut shape as a movieclip and dynamically applying it as a mask layer to a gradient filled cirle you create at run-time? You could even draw the mask layer at run-time instead of using a pre-drawn one. JOR ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Thanks Helen.. u rule!
The part which still amazes me is how u made the cut out. So u're saying
that by going in reverse over the larger radius circle, using the smaller
radius, the drawing would actually behave like the IDE drawing tool and cut
out the shape below. I never realized that. It opens up new drawing ideas.
Flash is getting too big to keep up with every aspect of it :)
Thanks a lot for this.
Regards,
Navneet
- Original Message -
From: "Helen Triolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Here's one I just made (and tested) from a draw circle prototype that then
draws another circle in reverse (before the endfill is applied --
necessary to get a cutout):
// r1 = radius of outer circle
// r2 = radius of inner circle (cutout)
// x, y = center of donut
MovieClip.prototype.drawDonut = function (r1, r2, x, y) {
var TO_RADIANS:Number = Math.PI/180;
this.moveTo(0, 0);
this.lineTo(r1, 0);
// draw the 30-degree segments
var a:Number = 0.268; // tan(15)
for (var i=0; i < 12; i++) {
var endx = r1*Math.cos((i+1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var endy = r1*Math.sin((i+1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var ax = endx+r1*a*Math.cos(((i+1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
var ay = endy+r1*a*Math.sin(((i+1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
this.curveTo(ax, ay, endx, endy); }
// cut out middle (go in reverse)
this.moveTo(0, 0);
this.lineTo(r2, 0);
for (var i=12; i > 0; i--) {
var endx = r2*Math.cos((i-1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var endy = r2*Math.sin((i-1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var ax = endx+r2*(0-a)*Math.cos(((i-1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
var ay = endy+r2*(0-a)*Math.sin(((i-1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
this.curveTo(ax, ay, endx, endy); }
this._x = x;
this._y = y;
}
// example usage:
createEmptyMovieClip("d", 1);
d.beginFill(0xaa, 60);
d.drawDonut(100, 50, 200, 200);
d.endFill();
Helen
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Woah, I never noticed you can private your constructor!! Lol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muzak
Sent: October 29, 2005 1:15 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Well, actually there is a difference.
In AS3, class constructors can not be Private. In AS2 they can.
So in AS2 you can do this:
class MySingleton {
private function MySingleton() {
}
public static function getInstance() {
// bah blah..
}
}
Which is not allowed in AS3.
regards,
Muzak
- Original Message -
From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*)
>
> Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in
> ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
True, nobody called that a Singleton until half way threw AS2. I think I still don't use that word often enough. I often use something like "a global object to manage..." and that often suffices for people to understand how the implementation might have been done. What's interesting with all this evolution of AS, is that, as it evolves real OOP terms are being used more and more in our everyday Flash vocabulary and that hence makes us look up those terms or simply make us remember of those terms which brings us to better implement our code. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: October 29, 2005 12:48 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*) Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > > than > > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton > pattern. > > > > > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders __
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Well, actually there is a difference.
In AS3, class constructors can not be Private. In AS2 they can.
So in AS2 you can do this:
class MySingleton {
private function MySingleton() {
}
public static function getInstance() {
// bah blah..
}
}
Which is not allowed in AS3.
regards,
Muzak
- Original Message -
From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*)
>
> Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in
> ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
In AS1, I would write this a bit like that:
MyClass = function () {
this.someProperty = "whatever";
}
MyClass.instance = null;
MyClass.getInstance = function () {
if(myClass.instance == null) {
MyClass.instance = new MyClass();
}
return MyClass.instance;
}
MyClass.prototope.someProperty;
MyClass.prototype.instanceMethod = function () {
trace("value of my property: "+this.someProperty);
}
That should give the same result and can be considered as a Singleton I
think. Now, I might be wrong but it sure seems to do the same thing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL
Sent: October 29, 2005 12:48 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway.
- Original Message -
From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
(*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*)
Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in
ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike
Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
You're welcome!
This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about
ActionScript in the process :-)
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That makes perfect sense and is a good reason.
>
> So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the
> list:
> - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a
> Singleton
> used in other languages other than ActionScript
> - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties,
> thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having
> to
> change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1,
> instance of itself.
>
> The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non
> would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking
> the
> time to explain it Spike!
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You
> can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a
> singleton.
>
> The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to
> different instances for each invocation.
>
> If you have followed the static class approach you have static method
> calls
> all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs
> to
> be non-static.
>
> If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the
> line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton.
>
> That's a pretty big benefit IMO.
>
> To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that
> brought all this up was your suggestion that
>
> Foo.someMethod()
>
> was identical to
>
> Foo.getInstance().someMethod()
>
> Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to
> death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least
> agree that they are indeed doing different things.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd
> > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though,
> to
> > know which formatter to return.
> >
> > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate
> > than
> > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton
> pattern.
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> Flashcoders mailing list
> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>
> ___
> Flashcoders mailing list
> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>
--
Stephen Milligan
Do you do the Badger?
http://www.yellowbadger.com
Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
_
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
JesterXL wrote: I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway. I didn't know that it was called a Singleton until Moocks book :) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Frédéric v. Bochmann wrote: "As you can see I've currently got the slider clip as a child of the scrollBar clip - should I bring it out to the same level?" On that matter, I would say, look carefully at your line of code that follows: (scrollBar._height - scrollBar.slider._y) If the slider is scrolled higher than _y = 0 or that the slider goes lower than scrollBar._height your slider will influence the scrollBar._height value. This can be quite dangerous for weird acting script, but if your sure your slider won't ever influence it's containers height, your Ok. I have the slider being constrained by the startDrag function to be within the scrollBar clip at all times, so it should be ok. What I might suggest you would be to use the scrollBar.scrollTrack._height that might be existent or not in your scrollBar movieclip. Yes, it is, I'll try that. Now for your script, I don't usually go that way of doing it so here is how I'd probably do it myself: var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height; currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * currentChild._height; I'm not 100% sure but I think this should work. Notice the negative value for the currentChild._y. Thanks, I'll see how that behaves. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
I didn't know what a Singleton was until AS2 was well underway. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question (*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*) Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > > than > > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton > pattern. > > > > > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem
"As you can see I've currently got the slider clip as a child of the scrollBar clip - should I bring it out to the same level?" On that matter, I would say, look carefully at your line of code that follows: (scrollBar._height - scrollBar.slider._y) If the slider is scrolled higher than _y = 0 or that the slider goes lower than scrollBar._height your slider will influence the scrollBar._height value. This can be quite dangerous for weird acting script, but if your sure your slider won't ever influence it's containers height, your Ok. What I might suggest you would be to use the scrollBar.scrollTrack._height that might be existent or not in your scrollBar movieclip. Now for your script, I don't usually go that way of doing it so here is how I'd probably do it myself: var scrollRatio = scrollBar.slider._y / scrollBar.scrollTrack._height; currentChild._y = - scrollRatio * currentChild._height; I'm not 100% sure but I think this should work. Notice the negative value for the currentChild._y. Fredz./ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent Humphrey Sent: October 29, 2005 12:28 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: [Flashcoders] scrolling problem Can someone help me with this code? I'm trying to figure out how to scroll an MC up and down based on the position of a scrollbar. What am I doing wrong with this code? I'm finding the ratio between how tall the content is (currentChild) and how tall the scrollbar is: scrollRatio = currentChild._height/scrollBar._height; Then changing the position of the content depending on where the scrollBar.slider is: currentChild._y = (scrollBar._height - scrollBar.slider._y)*scrollRatio; The result of this is the content is not visible until the scrollbar slider is most of the way down it's length, and then the content doesn't scroll far enough. As you can see I've currently got the slider clip as a child of the scrollBar clip - should I bring it out to the same level? Anyone got any ideas? ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
(*Just looking back at the title of this Thread*) Just in case someone's wonders; creating a Singleton is nothing new in ActionScript, it can be done in AS1, AS2 or AS3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: October 29, 2005 12:25 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > > than > > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton > pattern. > > > > > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] scrolling problem
Can someone help me with this code? I'm trying to figure out how to scroll an MC up and down based on the position of a scrollbar. What am I doing wrong with this code? I'm finding the ratio between how tall the content is (currentChild) and how tall the scrollbar is: scrollRatio = currentChild._height/scrollBar._height; Then changing the position of the content depending on where the scrollBar.slider is: currentChild._y = (scrollBar._height - scrollBar.slider._y)*scrollRatio; The result of this is the content is not visible until the scrollbar slider is most of the way down it's length, and then the content doesn't scroll far enough. As you can see I've currently got the slider clip as a child of the scrollBar clip - should I bring it out to the same level? Anyone got any ideas? ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
I'm not picking any sides, The Idea of a getInstance method (Singleton), as you guys have been saying, is to have a static way to get a non-static instance of a class. Also, that way of working makes it easier for the creator of that class to know his class will only get instantiated once. There are other advantages like the presence of a constructor and probably many other things that you guys have also mentioned. All this to say absolutely nothing:) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: October 29, 2005 12:14 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the list: - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a Singleton used in other languages other than ActionScript - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having to change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, instance of itself. The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it Spike! - Original Message - From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a singleton. The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to different instances for each invocation. If you have followed the static class approach you have static method calls all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs to be non-static. If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. That's a pretty big benefit IMO. To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that brought all this up was your suggestion that Foo.someMethod() was identical to Foo.getInstance().someMethod() Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least agree that they are indeed doing different things. Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, to > know which formatter to return. > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > than > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton pattern. > > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
You're welcome! This has been an interesting thread and I've learned a bit more about ActionScript in the process :-) Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. > > So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the > list: > - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a > Singleton > used in other languages other than ActionScript > - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, > thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having > to > change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, > instance of itself. > > The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non > would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking > the > time to explain it Spike! > > - Original Message - > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question > > > It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You > can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a > singleton. > > The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to > different instances for each invocation. > > If you have followed the static class approach you have static method > calls > all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs > to > be non-static. > > If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the > line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. > > That's a pretty big benefit IMO. > > To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that > brought all this up was your suggestion that > > Foo.someMethod() > > was identical to > > Foo.getInstance().someMethod() > > Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to > death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least > agree that they are indeed doing different things. > > Spike > > On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, > to > > know which formatter to return. > > > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > > than > > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton > pattern. > > > > > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
That makes perfect sense and is a good reason. So, from this 2nd conversation, I've gleaned something else to add to the list: - getInstance() is a unspoken standard that implies the class is a Singleton used in other languages other than ActionScript - getInstance() treats a class as a true class without static properties, thus making it easier to go from Singleton to a true class without having to change a bunch of code, because all it really does is make 1, and only 1, instance of itself. The thought of changing multiple lines of code to go from static to non would really suck; that drives the point home for me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it Spike! - Original Message - From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a singleton. The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to different instances for each invocation. If you have followed the static class approach you have static method calls all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs to be non-static. If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. That's a pretty big benefit IMO. To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that brought all this up was your suggestion that Foo.someMethod() was identical to Foo.getInstance().someMethod() Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least agree that they are indeed doing different things. Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, to > know which formatter to return. > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > than > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton pattern. > > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Yes and this also applies to AS2. All depending on how you want your function to work. The usage of variables declared outside a anonymous class or function is possible but it's important to know in which scope those variables are being accessed, thus the usage of "this" can be very useful to know exactly what you are accessing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of zwetan Sent: October 29, 2005 9:03 AM To: 'Flashcoders mailing list' Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question > >>No need to get hyper about "this". > >>The matter stays that "this" used to be essential in AS1, thus probably > why > >>people still like to implicate him in their code. But I agree that > putting > >>"this" in an AS2 Class should be used only when necessary. > > > > You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in > AS2, right? > > Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference > between the two. There is a difference for AS3 ! (and this is the correct behaviour) http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs/1/flex/langref/statements.html#this "To call a function defined in a dynamic class, you must use this to invoke the function in the proper scope" zwetan ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
It's not necessarily any better from an implementation point of view. You can often do the same thing with a static class as you can with a singleton. The big benefit comes if you need to change from singleton/static to different instances for each invocation. If you have followed the static class approach you have static method calls all through your code that you will need to change if the class now needs to be non-static. If you have followed the singleton approach, you only need to change the line of code that retrieves the instance inside the singleton. That's a pretty big benefit IMO. To get back to where we started all this, the original statement that brought all this up was your suggestion that Foo.someMethod() was identical to Foo.getInstance().someMethod() Whether one is better than another is something that can be debated to death, and often is on Java mailing lists, but hopefully you'll at least agree that they are indeed doing different things. Spike On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd > have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, to > know which formatter to return. > > Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate > than > just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton pattern. > > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
The idea is to use it (this) when you have two variables with the same name, usually to distinguish between the class member and a locally declared variable. You must know that :) The compiler won't know to use "this" or not in those cases, so it is important to use it in those contexts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muzak Sent: October 28, 2005 7:53 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in AS2, right? Muzak - Original Message - From: "Frédéric v. Bochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:53 AM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question > No need to get hyper about "this". > The matter stays that "this" used to be essential in AS1, thus probably why > people still like to implicate him in their code. But I agree that putting > "this" in an AS2 Class should be used only when necessary. > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
I would have 20 static classes, not 20 if/then/switch statements. You'd
have that same if/then statement in the getInstance() function, though, to
know which formatter to return.
Again, I'm having a hard time seeing why getInstance is more appopriate than
just making static classes, and how this applys to the Singleton pattern.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
but using Composition and a Singleton arent mutually exclusive.
Composition is a very broad style of OO architecture, used widely
throughout a lot of patterns.
You *might* call his example a Singleton Factory, but that probably
confuses the issue as its not creating multiple instances of a concrete
subclass, just creating one instance at runtime depending on particular
external factors.
I think his example is a good one, it keeps the dependency on locale
knowledge safely contained in one place, and as Spike says, if you start
moving up to 20 or so locales to support, you arent going to want to
have a massive switch / if else statement everytime you want some locale
dependent currency formatting.
all the client code ever needs to do is ask the CurrencyFormatter for
its instance and for that instance to format the number.
martin
JesterXL wrote:
> As the coffee kicks in, that also looks like Composition, not Singleton.
> Like, you have a Singleton class instantiating instances and returning
> them
> of other classes from within itself.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> It does a little. Why can't can't you just extend the base
> CurrencyFormatter class and do the same thing for the formatValue
> function?
> Rather than return the correct one for getInstance(), just utilize the
> particular format class you want?
>
> Like, do:
>
> var val = UKCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
>
> and:
>
> var val = USCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
>
> ?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> Sure,
>
> Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
>
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
>
> public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
> // use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
> if (locale == "UK") {
> formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
> } else {
> formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
> }
> return formatter;
> }
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> public formatValue(val:Number) {
> // very simplistic formatting
> return "$" + String(val);
> }
> }
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> public formatValue(val:Number) {
> // very simplistic formatting
> return "£" + String(val);
> }
> }
>
> }
>
> Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
>
> Spike
>
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>>
>>
>>ok,
>>
>>That's just a static class.
>>
>>Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
>>and
>>a static class.
>>
>>Here's another example.
>>
>>You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>>
>>One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
>>currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>>
>>So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
>>declarations for simplicty):
>>
>>public class CurrencyFormatter {
>>
>>class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>>
>>}
>>
>>
>>class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>>
>>}
>>}
>>
>>Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
>>formatter for my locale.
>>
>>With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
>>locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
>>but
>>if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>>
>>You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
>>the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
>>singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>>
>>Spike
>>
>>On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>To clarify:
>>>
>>>
>>>class ServerConnection
>>>{
>>>private static var url;
>>>private static var port;
>>>private static var socket;
>>>
>>>public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
>>>{
>>>url = p_url;
>>>port = p_port;
>>>socket = ne
Re: [Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
JOR wrote: At first glance it looks like you have a potential continuous loop issue? stopwatchComplete() >> questionComplete() >> stopwatchComplete() >> and so on if (id >= questions.length) Second is I don't see where "id" is defined in questionComplete() did you mean to type this instead: The id should ofcourse matched the correct name of the parameter. If you know a better way please let me know! if ( questionId >= questions.length ) Aha, good one I will try ;-) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
(-: Tatactic :-) wrote: In the book of C.Moock, he recommends the redundant use of [this] No he doesn't. He says "some people prefer" but he also clearly states that it is not used anywhere in the book, because it makes code overly verbose and hence, less readable. If you want to check, it's on page 87 (listed in the index under "this (keyword), redundant use of"). That aside, "he told me to do it" isn't a convincing argument anyway. - Robert ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
but using Composition and a Singleton arent mutually exclusive.
Composition is a very broad style of OO architecture, used widely
throughout a lot of patterns.
You *might* call his example a Singleton Factory, but that probably
confuses the issue as its not creating multiple instances of a concrete
subclass, just creating one instance at runtime depending on particular
external factors.
I think his example is a good one, it keeps the dependency on locale
knowledge safely contained in one place, and as Spike says, if you start
moving up to 20 or so locales to support, you arent going to want to
have a massive switch / if else statement everytime you want some locale
dependent currency formatting.
all the client code ever needs to do is ask the CurrencyFormatter for
its instance and for that instance to format the number.
martin
JesterXL wrote:
As the coffee kicks in, that also looks like Composition, not Singleton.
Like, you have a Singleton class instantiating instances and returning them
of other classes from within itself.
- Original Message -
From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
It does a little. Why can't can't you just extend the base
CurrencyFormatter class and do the same thing for the formatValue function?
Rather than return the correct one for getInstance(), just utilize the
particular format class you want?
Like, do:
var val = UKCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
and:
var val = USCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
?
- Original Message -
From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
- Original Message -
From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
ok,
That's just a static class.
Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
and
a static class.
Here's another example.
You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
declarations for simplicty):
public class CurrencyFormatter {
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
}
}
Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
formatter for my locale.
With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
but
if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To clarify:
class ServerConnection
{
private static var url;
private static var port;
private static var socket;
public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
{
url = p_url;
port = p_port;
socket = new Socket();
socket.connect(url, port);
}
public static function getData()
{
// Simple function that gets something from the server.
}
}
Then to use:
ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
- Original Message -
From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton is implemented, hence my long
battle with finding clarification. It could of been solved in 10 seconds
over a beer, but email sux.
I figured Math.abs was the Singleton pattern, and ARP, me, Sho, Steven
Webster, and everyone else apparently has their own version of
Controller
as
well. I figured I knew enough to use it.
For instance, your example makes perfect sense
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
One of those moments where you can say that the Mathematics teacher was right! ;-) ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
How about making the doughnut shape as a movieclip and dynamically applying it as a mask layer to a gradient filled cirle you create at run-time? You could even draw the mask layer at run-time instead of using a pre-drawn one. JOR ___ === James O'Reilly === === SynergyMedia, Inc. === www.synergymedia.net Navneet Behal wrote: After putting a couple of hours on the problem, I am still in a daze on how would one go about making a doughnut shape (circle with cut-out in the center) using the drawing API. I'm not talking about drawing a circle using: lineStyle(BIGNUMBERHERE, color, alpha); I'd like to put in a gradient fill into a doughnut shape. And it has to be a doughnut, not a simulation of it (ie. not by drawing 2 circles over each other and keeping the center cirlce the same as the background color). Real dunkin' doughnut! Any ideas? Thanks for your time. Regards, Navneet ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
At first glance it looks like you have a potential continuous loop issue?
stopwatchComplete() >> questionComplete() >> stopwatchComplete() >> and
so on if (id >= questions.length)
Second is I don't see where "id" is defined in questionComplete() did
you mean to type this instead:
if ( questionId >= questions.length )
JOR
___
=== James O'Reilly
===
=== SynergyMedia, Inc.
=== www.synergymedia.net
Weyert de Boer wrote:
Hi Liam,
First of all I always have had trouble with those methods, never got it
right. Always failed, I don't they dont like!
I imagine you're calling clearInterval with the appropriate interval
ID upon
each quiz question submittal, and then afterwards recalling
setInterval for
the new question? How does it fail the second time? Does it just never
call
it again, or does it call the function at a different interval?
Well, I happen to have a resource xml file which get loaded prioer of
each group of questions, once this group is readed a
method in the root timeline gets triggered which will determine what to
do. This method will also trigger the method buildQuestion() when
required, this method will create a new instance of
"question"-movieclip. After this part is done the function doStopwatch()
is called:
function doStopwatch() {
// 1second = 1000ms
_root.stopwatchIntervalId = setInterval( _root.stopwatchComplete,
3000 );
}
function stopwatchComplete() {
clearInterval( _root.stopwatchIntervalId );
// trigger the question completed method
_root.questionComplete( _root.question.id, _root.question.type );
}
function questionComplete( questionId, questionType ) {
if ( id >= questions.length ) {
// out of questions
_root.stopwatchComplete();
} else {
// next quesiton
buildQuestion( questionId + 1 );
}
}
IF you have a better solution please let me know! I feel so stupid that
I don't get thing timer stuff working.
Yours,
Weyert de Boer
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Basic idea to use xml in flash
Wassem - what is it in particular you want help with. The subject of your mail would suggest you need something to do with XML - is this correct ? Pete -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waseem Shahzad Sent: 29 October 2005 11:24 To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: [Flashcoders] Basic idea to use xml in flash Hello All members hope you are fine. I have a problem that I am novice in the world of flash but not so much but I think that you are all too much seniors from me in flash knowledge I want too much from flash please guide me and tell me a better way to have a nice grip on actionscripting, I'll be grateful to all of you. God bless you all. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
As the coffee kicks in, that also looks like Composition, not Singleton.
Like, you have a Singleton class instantiating instances and returning them
of other classes from within itself.
- Original Message -
From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
It does a little. Why can't can't you just extend the base
CurrencyFormatter class and do the same thing for the formatValue function?
Rather than return the correct one for getInstance(), just utilize the
particular format class you want?
Like, do:
var val = UKCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
and:
var val = USCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
?
- Original Message -
From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
> > private static var socket;
> >
> > public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
> > {
> > url = p_url;
> > port = p_port;
> > socket = new Socket();
> > socket.connect(url, port);
> > }
> >
> > public static function getData()
> > {
> > // Simple function that gets something from the server.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then to use:
> >
> > ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton is implemented, hence my long
> > battle with finding clarification. It could of been solved in 10 seconds
> > over a beer, but email sux.
> >
> > I figured Math.abs was the Singleton pattern, and ARP, me, Sho, Steven
> > Webster, and everyone else apparently has their own version of
> Controller
> > as
> > well. I figured I knew enough to use it.
> >
> > For instance, your example makes perfect sense and I can see why you'd
> > want
> > to do it that way. I, on the other hand would just put an if then
> > statement
> > in the connect method or whatever to ensure we're connected before
> making
> > a
> > method call, else throw an exception.
> >
> > Are they both the Singleton pattern? Does it matter?
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Hmmm
> >
> > >From your explanation, I think either I don't understand what happens
> in
> >
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
In the book of C.Moock, he recommends the redundant use of [this] Sorry, I'm a newbie too but it seems to be a good practice to specify clearly the scope you refer to. It's clearly specified in chapter 6 to be aware about the scope. "Essential ActionScript 2.0 O'Reilly Media, Inc, 2004, ISBN 0-596-00652-7" Greetings N -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of zwetan Sent: samedi 29 octobre 2005 15:03 To: 'Flashcoders mailing list' Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question > >>No need to get hyper about "this". > >>The matter stays that "this" used to be essential in AS1, thus probably > why > >>people still like to implicate him in their code. But I agree that > putting > >>"this" in an AS2 Class should be used only when necessary. > > > > You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in > AS2, right? > > Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference > between the two. There is a difference for AS3 ! (and this is the correct behaviour) http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs/1/flex/langref/statements.html#this "To call a function defined in a dynamic class, you must use this to invoke the function in the proper scope" zwetan ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
zwetan wrote: Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference between the two. There is a difference for AS3 ! (and this is the correct behaviour) http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs/1/flex/langref/statements.html#this "To call a function defined in a dynamic class, you must use this to invoke the function in the proper scope" This holds true for AS2 as well. In fact, this is a perfect example of the *right* use of the keyword "this". In this kind of situation, you need to include "this" to dereference a function that is not known to exist at compile time. Otherwise it's an ambiguous statement, because the function, not being found in the class definition, is sought in the global scope instead. That would be especially bad if a similarly-named function does happen to exist in the global namespace, because you won't get a compiler error but the wrong function would be called. - Robert ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
Here's one I just made (and tested) from a draw circle prototype that
then draws another circle in reverse (before the endfill is applied --
necessary to get a cutout):
// r1 = radius of outer circle
// r2 = radius of inner circle (cutout)
// x, y = center of donut
MovieClip.prototype.drawDonut = function (r1, r2, x, y) {
var TO_RADIANS:Number = Math.PI/180;
this.moveTo(0, 0);
this.lineTo(r1, 0);
// draw the 30-degree segments
var a:Number = 0.268; // tan(15)
for (var i=0; i < 12; i++) {
var endx = r1*Math.cos((i+1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var endy = r1*Math.sin((i+1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var ax = endx+r1*a*Math.cos(((i+1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
var ay = endy+r1*a*Math.sin(((i+1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
this.curveTo(ax, ay, endx, endy);
}
// cut out middle (go in reverse)
this.moveTo(0, 0);
this.lineTo(r2, 0);
for (var i=12; i > 0; i--) {
var endx = r2*Math.cos((i-1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var endy = r2*Math.sin((i-1)*30*TO_RADIANS);
var ax = endx+r2*(0-a)*Math.cos(((i-1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
var ay = endy+r2*(0-a)*Math.sin(((i-1)*30-90)*TO_RADIANS);
this.curveTo(ax, ay, endx, endy);
}
this._x = x;
this._y = y;
}
// example usage:
createEmptyMovieClip("d", 1);
d.beginFill(0xaa, 60);
d.drawDonut(100, 50, 200, 200);
d.endFill();
Helen
Navneet Behal wrote:
After putting a couple of hours on the problem, I am still in a daze
on how would one go about making a doughnut shape (circle with cut-out
in the center) using the drawing API.
I'm not talking about drawing a circle using:
lineStyle(BIGNUMBERHERE, color, alpha);
I'd like to put in a gradient fill into a doughnut shape. And it has
to be a doughnut, not a simulation of it (ie. not by drawing 2 circles
over each other and keeping the center cirlce the same as the
background color). Real dunkin' doughnut!
Any ideas?
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
If you utilize a static function, it would be called when the class itself
is created in ActionScript, before frame 1 even runs:
class Test
{
static var inited = InitThisTest();
}
Why wouldn't that solve it?
- Original Message -
From: "A.Cicak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:59 AM
Subject: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Problem with JasterXL's class is initialization. For example if you had to
initialize something in that class you should make static method called
InitCurrencyFormatter(). But when to call it? If other classes are using
CurrencyFormatter than you should ensure to call InitCurrencyFormatter()
before construction of any class which uses it is called. But what if
InitCurrencyFormatter also depends on some other class which is made just
with static methods (like JasterXL's). In that case that other class would
have to have InitOtherClass() and it also should be called before other
objects are constructed and before InitCurrencyFormatter. Now imagine 20
classes like that and thousands of lines of code depending on them, it would
be almost impossible to keep track when to initialize any of these classes,
and it would be very error prone (you change order of execution and you
start using uninitialized objects). If you make these classes singletons you
don't have that problem, because when you call getInstance() if object was
not initialized getInstance will call new and that will call its constructor
( which now replaces InitCurrencyFormatter, InitOtherClass, etc..) and it
will ensure that all objects are initialized at time of their use, and you
do not have to worry about order of execution.
"Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
> > private static var socket;
> >
> > public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
> > {
> > url = p_url;
> > port = p_port;
> > socket = new Socket();
> > socket.connect(url, port);
> > }
> >
> > public static function getData()
> > {
> > // Simple function that gets something from the server.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then to use:
> >
> > ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton is implemented, hence my long
> > battle with finding clarification. It could of been solved in 10 seconds
> > over a beer, but email sux.
> >
> > I figured Math.abs was the Singleton patt
Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
It does a little. Why can't can't you just extend the base
CurrencyFormatter class and do the same thing for the formatValue function?
Rather than return the correct one for getInstance(), just utilize the
particular format class you want?
Like, do:
var val = UKCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
and:
var val = USCurrencyFormatter.getFormat();
?
- Original Message -
From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
> > private static var socket;
> >
> > public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
> > {
> > url = p_url;
> > port = p_port;
> > socket = new Socket();
> > socket.connect(url, port);
> > }
> >
> > public static function getData()
> > {
> > // Simple function that gets something from the server.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then to use:
> >
> > ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton is implemented, hence my long
> > battle with finding clarification. It could of been solved in 10 seconds
> > over a beer, but email sux.
> >
> > I figured Math.abs was the Singleton pattern, and ARP, me, Sho, Steven
> > Webster, and everyone else apparently has their own version of
> Controller
> > as
> > well. I figured I knew enough to use it.
> >
> > For instance, your example makes perfect sense and I can see why you'd
> > want
> > to do it that way. I, on the other hand would just put an if then
> > statement
> > in the connect method or whatever to ensure we're connected before
> making
> > a
> > method call, else throw an exception.
> >
> > Are they both the Singleton pattern? Does it matter?
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Hmmm
> >
> > >From your explanation, I think either I don't understand what happens
> in
> > >AS,
> > or you're misunderstanding the use of the singleton pattern.
> >
> > In an attempt to understand better, here's an example of where I would
> use
> > the singleton pattern.
> >
> > I have a requirement to talk to a socket on a server, but I need to make
> > sure that I only ever have a single connection from each user.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > I create a ServerConnect
[Flashcoders] How to make a doughnut?
After putting a couple of hours on the problem, I am still in a daze on how would one go about making a doughnut shape (circle with cut-out in the center) using the drawing API. I'm not talking about drawing a circle using: lineStyle(BIGNUMBERHERE, color, alpha); I'd like to put in a gradient fill into a doughnut shape. And it has to be a doughnut, not a simulation of it (ie. not by drawing 2 circles over each other and keeping the center cirlce the same as the background color). Real dunkin' doughnut! Any ideas? Thanks for your time. Regards, Navneet ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] SWF Decompilers
yep still works On 10/28/05, Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Question: > BTW, anyone knows if __bytecode__() is supported in Flash 8 (I'm still > using MX 2004 Pro)? > > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
> >>No need to get hyper about "this". > >>The matter stays that "this" used to be essential in AS1, thus probably > why > >>people still like to implicate him in their code. But I agree that > putting > >>"this" in an AS2 Class should be used only when necessary. > > > > You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in > AS2, right? > > Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference > between the two. There is a difference for AS3 ! (and this is the correct behaviour) http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs/1/flex/langref/statements.html#this "To call a function defined in a dynamic class, you must use this to invoke the function in the proper scope" zwetan ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
Hi Liam,
First of all I always have had trouble with those methods, never got it
right. Always failed, I don't they dont like!
I imagine you're calling clearInterval with the appropriate interval ID upon
each quiz question submittal, and then afterwards recalling setInterval for
the new question? How does it fail the second time? Does it just never call
it again, or does it call the function at a different interval?
Well, I happen to have a resource xml file which get loaded prioer of
each group of questions, once this group is readed a
method in the root timeline gets triggered which will determine what to
do. This method will also trigger the method buildQuestion() when
required, this method will create a new instance of
"question"-movieclip. After this part is done the function doStopwatch()
is called:
function doStopwatch() {
// 1second = 1000ms
_root.stopwatchIntervalId = setInterval( _root.stopwatchComplete,
3000 );
}
function stopwatchComplete() {
clearInterval( _root.stopwatchIntervalId );
// trigger the question completed method
_root.questionComplete( _root.question.id, _root.question.type );
}
function questionComplete( questionId, questionType ) {
if ( id >= questions.length ) {
// out of questions
_root.stopwatchComplete();
} else {
// next quesiton
buildQuestion( questionId + 1 );
}
}
IF you have a better solution please let me know! I feel so stupid that
I don't get thing timer stuff working.
Yours,
Weyert de Boer
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Muzak wrote: [fixed top posting] No need to get hyper about "this". The matter stays that "this" used to be essential in AS1, thus probably why people still like to implicate him in their code. But I agree that putting "this" in an AS2 Class should be used only when necessary. > > You do know that it (this.) is being added for you at compile time in AS2, right? Who cares? All that means is that there is no semantic difference between the two. Given that fact, you should use whichever syntax makes your own life easier as a programmer and is more maintainable. I started off using "this." a lot, partly because in Director there really *is* a semantic difference between explicitly using "me" (the equivalent of "this") or not - leaving it out is faster but can cause maintenance problems. You therefore get into the habit of always explicitly using "me." and I initially carried this practise across to AS2. However as I tend to write a lot of static utility classes, I had to get out of the habit fairly quickly. I also found that I quite often wanted to take a bit of code from one class and put it into another class, which doesn't work if one is static and the other has "this." all over the place. After getting really sick of rewriting code all the time, I just dropped "this." entirely. My code does look cleaner that way, so I'm not going back. If you really, really want to distinguish member properties from local variables, use prefixes. Or better yet, just write your code clearly (with comments if necessary) so that there isn't any ambiguity over what each variable is supposed to be for. There really is no good reason to include explicit "this" references everywhere. - Robert ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Free and open source software
Flash: http://flasm.sourceforge.net/ On 10/29/05, Ian Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sound - Audacity: *http://audacity.sourceforge.net/* > > On 10/28/05, Patrick Matte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, I'm rounding up a list of free and open source software. > > > > For flash, I have found MTASC and swfmil. > > > > Does anyboby know of any other free software for editing sound, video, > > bitmap and vector images? > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
I imagine you're calling clearInterval with the appropriate interval ID upon each quiz question submittal, and then afterwards recalling setInterval for the new question? How does it fail the second time? Does it just never call it again, or does it call the function at a different interval? Liam On 10/29/05, Weyert de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, I am currently working on the "good" version of the quiz only I > have a question how I should implementate some part. The quiz should ask > yes/no questions and the user should only have three to six seconds to > answer the question. If the user fails to answer the question within > this time, the answer should be fault. Currently I used a setInterval() > with 3000ms only I never get stuff with intervals right. Always it goes > all fine the first question, but the second it fals. Does anyone know a > good way to implementate this? Maybe through event delegation instead of > a interval callback method? > > Yours, > > Weyert de Boer > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
Problem with JasterXL's class is initialization. For example if you had to
initialize something in that class you should make static method called
InitCurrencyFormatter(). But when to call it? If other classes are using
CurrencyFormatter than you should ensure to call InitCurrencyFormatter()
before construction of any class which uses it is called. But what if
InitCurrencyFormatter also depends on some other class which is made just
with static methods (like JasterXL's). In that case that other class would
have to have InitOtherClass() and it also should be called before other
objects are constructed and before InitCurrencyFormatter. Now imagine 20
classes like that and thousands of lines of code depending on them, it would
be almost impossible to keep track when to initialize any of these classes,
and it would be very error prone (you change order of execution and you
start using uninitialized objects). If you make these classes singletons you
don't have that problem, because when you call getInstance() if object was
not initialized getInstance will call new and that will call its constructor
( which now replaces InitCurrencyFormatter, InitOtherClass, etc..) and it
will ensure that all objects are initialized at time of their use, and you
do not have to worry about order of execution.
"Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure,
Here's a slightly more complete implementation of that last example:
public class CurrencyFormatter {
private static formatter:CurrencyFormatter;
public function getInstance():CurrencyFormatter {
// use ExternalInterface or IP lookup or whatever to determine locale
if (locale == "UK") {
formatter = new UKCurrencyFormatter();
} else {
formatter = new USCurrencyFormatter();
}
return formatter;
}
class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "$" + String(val);
}
}
class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
public formatValue(val:Number) {
// very simplistic formatting
return "£" + String(val);
}
}
}
Let me know if that explains it a bit better.
Spike
On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate? Why wouldn't the static class work in that case?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Spike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
>
>
> ok,
>
> That's just a static class.
>
> Like I said, there's a subtle but important difference between singleton
> and
> a static class.
>
> Here's another example.
>
> You have a requirement to provide a currency formatter.
>
> One way to do this is to create a singleton that returns a different
> currency formatter depending on which locale you are in.
>
> So in the class you would have something like this (Omitting method
> declarations for simplicty):
>
> public class CurrencyFormatter {
>
> class USCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
>
>
> class UKCurrencyFormatter extends CurrencyFormatter {
>
> }
> }
>
> Now if I call CurrencyFormatter.getInstance() it gives me the correct
> formatter for my locale.
>
> With your static class approach you have to check in every method what the
> locale is and handle it accordingly. That's fine for one or two locales,
> but
> if you want to handle 20, it gets pretty ugly.
>
> You can solve the problem in other ways of course, but it does demonstrate
> the difference between static classes and the singleton pattern. The
> singleton pattern offers you a lot more possibilities.
>
> Spike
>
> On 10/29/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> >
> > class ServerConnection
> > {
> > private static var url;
> > private static var port;
> > private static var socket;
> >
> > public static function connect(p_url, p_port)
> > {
> > url = p_url;
> > port = p_port;
> > socket = new Socket();
> > socket.connect(url, port);
> > }
> >
> > public static function getData()
> > {
> > // Simple function that gets something from the server.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then to use:
> >
> > ServerConnection.connect(myURL, myPort);
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "JesterXL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Newbie AS3 question
> >
> >
> > Naw, I don't know the exact way Singleton is implemented, hence my long
> > battle with finding clarification. It could of been solved in 10 seconds
> > over a beer, but email sux.
> >
> > I figured Math.abs was the Singleton pattern, and ARP, me, Sho, Steven
> > Webster, and everyone else apparently has their own version of
> Controller
> > as
> > well. I figured I knew enough to use it.
> >
> > For instance, your example makes perfect sense and I can see why you'd
> > want
> > to do it that way. I, on the other hand would just put an if then
> > statement
> > in the connect method
[Flashcoders] Re: Newbie AS3 question
yes, this is true in ActionScript referencing or instantiating a singleton class via a static getInstance method, is a different matter to all methods of a class being static > > > The former is calling an instance method and the latter is calling a > > > static > > > method. > > > > > > Instance methods have access to instance data that is persisted as > long > > as > > > the instance exists, static methods have access only to static data > and > > > that > > > data passed in to the method call. > > > > > > Is this not true in ActionScript? Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education & Training. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] setInterval() and the trouble
Hmm, I am currently working on the "good" version of the quiz only I have a question how I should implementate some part. The quiz should ask yes/no questions and the user should only have three to six seconds to answer the question. If the user fails to answer the question within this time, the answer should be fault. Currently I used a setInterval() with 3000ms only I never get stuff with intervals right. Always it goes all fine the first question, but the second it fals. Does anyone know a good way to implementate this? Maybe through event delegation instead of a interval callback method? Yours, Weyert de Boer ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] Basic idea to use xml in flash
Hello All members hope you are fine. I have a problem that I am novice in the world of flash but not so much but I think that you are all too much seniors from me in flash knowledge I want too much from flash please guide me and tell me a better way to have a nice grip on actionscripting, I'll be grateful to all of you. God bless you all. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Free and open source software
Sound - Audacity: *http://audacity.sourceforge.net/* On 10/28/05, Patrick Matte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I'm rounding up a list of free and open source software. > > For flash, I have found MTASC and swfmil. > > Does anyboby know of any other free software for editing sound, video, > bitmap and vector images? > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
