[Flashcoders] SharedObject.lock and client side code

[ktt]

Hello,

I'm writing multiuser application with FMS. Now it is possible to change 
SharedObject from client side: 
sharedWObject.setDirty(myLineSlotName);
Is it necessary to use SharedObject lock/unlock in server side code?
How to coordinate server side actions with setDirty?

Thank you in advance,
Ktt


  
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Dave Watts]

> > No one needs to learn "framework mumbo-jumbo", but if that's how you
> > see frameworks, you're missing the point. The point of using a
> > framework is to be able to spend less time thinking about how you
> > organize things. Frameworks are for lazy people like me. I'd rather be
> > watching TV than organizing my code.
>
> There is a backside to that. When giving up control, you are giving up
> control. There also is the issue of getting two different frameworks to not
> try and kill each other. And it's still your responsibility how things are
> done, if the framework has a bug, your program has a bug.
>
> But the benefits are indeed there. But there is clearly more to it than just
> benefits.

Yes, there are definitely costs. You have to learn the framework, it
has to be flexible enough to not constrain the tasks you're trying to
accomplish. Frameworks should generally only constrain arbitrary
choices, not functional choices. But you shouldn't have to get two
different frameworks to not kill each other, because within a single
project, there should be only one (just like Highlander).

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Henrik Andersson]

Dave Watts wrote:

No one needs to learn "framework mumbo-jumbo", but if that's how you
see frameworks, you're missing the point. The point of using a
framework is to be able to spend less time thinking about how you
organize things. Frameworks are for lazy people like me. I'd rather be
watching TV than organizing my code.



There is a backside to that. When giving up control, you are giving up 
control. There also is the issue of getting two different frameworks to 
not try and kill each other. And it's still your responsibility how 
things are done, if the framework has a bug, your program has a bug.


But the benefits are indeed there. But there is clearly more to it than 
just benefits.

___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Dave Watts]

> Don't let the programmers on the list intimidate you into learning a bunch of 
> framework mumbo-jumbo. If you learned Flash/Flex
> after earning a Computer Science degree, it makes sense because they *start* 
> with OOP day one in school. But for creative
> Flash peeps, frameworks are a Brazilian black hole best left to *cough* 
> experts.

No one needs to learn "framework mumbo-jumbo", but if that's how you
see frameworks, you're missing the point. The point of using a
framework is to be able to spend less time thinking about how you
organize things. Frameworks are for lazy people like me. I'd rather be
watching TV than organizing my code.

Now, one of the things I like about Flex is that it inclines people to
follow an MVC pattern without really needing a formal framework, but I
don't get the same impression about "pure" Flash apps - I could, of
course, be completely wrong about that.

> The basics of MVC are:
>
> Model - this means "data". It's the stuff you want to show (list of stuff, 
> etc)
>
> View - these are your graphic layouts. Best way to grok what this is for: 
> think my laptop view, my iPhone view, etc.

Typically, people often mean a bit more than this for views. Within a
single desktop app, you might have many different views, for example.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just expanding on what you wrote a bit.

> Controller - this is the meat of your app. It figures out what data you have 
> and which view to show it in.
>
> So yeah, MVC is very helpful, especially in the multi-screen age. As for 
> Cairngorm, PureMVC, etc - leave them alone.
> Completely. You'll know when it's time to use them:
>
> 1) when you *have* to work with a team that uses them
> 2) you're advanced enough as a developer that you seek out new ways to 
> program instead of being creative... *snark*

3) when your projects get large enough that you can't easily
distinguish between all of the different types of things you've
created.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Glen Pike]

But to be fair, this list is clearly marked "flashcoders" so we tend to 
talk a lot about code... and get really excited about OOP & MVC ;)


To be a bit pedantic - the Controller is supposed to respond to "input" 
from the view and interpret that input to change the model, or possibly 
the view.  The view just listens to the model for changes which it shows 
and sends messages to the controller...  I have not used Cairngorm or 
PureMVC yet - to busy wading through my own mess of MVC, but trying hard 
to do it.


OT - looking forward to listening to your mix, but you missed a few good 
un's "Egyptian Horn Track", "Far Out" (Sonz of a Loop Da Loop Era) & 
possibly one of the most hoovery tracks by DJ Red Alert & Mike Slammer 
whose title I better not put on here... 
http://www.discogs.com/DJ-Red-Alert-Mike-Slammer-Fckin-Hardcore-In-Effect-Remixes/release/30010  
You can't beat a bit of vinyl...



Radley Marx wrote:

Don't let the programmers on the list intimidate you into learning a bunch of 
framework mumbo-jumbo. If you learned Flash/Flex after earning a Computer 
Science degree, it makes sense because they *start* with OOP day one in school. 
But for creative Flash peeps, frameworks are a Brazilian black hole best left 
to *cough* experts.

The basics of MVC are:

Model - this means "data". It's the stuff you want to show (list of stuff, etc)

View - these are your graphic layouts. Best way to grok what this is for: think 
my laptop view, my iPhone view, etc.

Controller - this is the meat of your app. It figures out what data you have 
and which view to show it in.


So yeah, MVC is very helpful, especially in the multi-screen age. As for 
Cairngorm, PureMVC, etc - leave them alone. Completely. You'll know when it's 
time to use them:

1) when you *have* to work with a team that uses them
2) you're advanced enough as a developer that you seek out new ways to program 
instead of being creative... *snark*


-radley






On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Cor wrote:

  

Hi Jason,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you of list.
If you do, please ignore this message and I apologize to you!

I am trying to grasp the MVC pattern, but it is very hard for me.
I am looking for a very simple example which explains the way it works.
If you can help me with this, I would be very greatful.

Thanks in advance.
Kind regards
Cor van Dooren
The Netherlands


-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Merrill,
Jason
Sent: dinsdag 19 januari 2010 17:35
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

This is my opinion, I'm sure others will have their own that may differ
(and probably recommend you check out some frameworks  - though that can
be a lot to tackle) :  the controller would listen to the model to know
when the data is ready and available.  It would then tell the view to
start building.  The main class would hold the references to the model,
view, controller, but would not command any classes to do anything
really.  You could have the view listen to the model as well and skip
the controller doing it, but I like the view to be more decoupled than
that.  I usually try and keep most listeners in the controller where
possible, though many end up in the view, depending on the situation.  I
never have listeners in the model though, only events that are
dispatched.  


I actually have the model start and do it's own XML loading, but you
could have the controller tell it to do that, just seems like an
unnecessary step.

Another thing I do is have a main class called MVC that extends Sprite
or DisplayObject which initializes the model, view, controller, in
order, dispatches an event when all three are initialized, and provides
access to each via a singleton implementation.  It allows me to access
any part of a model, view, controller from any other part just by
calling MVC.instance.  Then it's just var _mvc:MVC = MVC.instancel; then
_mvc.model.myprop or _mvc.view.update() or whatever. That class looks
like this:

package mvc
{
import events.MVCEvent;
import events.view.ViewEvent;
import events.controller.ControllerEvent;
import events.model.ModelEvent;
import mvc.controller.Controller;
import mvc.model.Model;
import mvc.view.View;
import flash.display.Sprite;
/**
 * ...
 * @author Jason Merrill - Bank of America
 */
public class MVC extends Sprite
{   
public var view:View;
public var model:Model;
public var controller:Controller;

private static var _instance:MVC;

		public function MVC() 
		{	

if ( _instance != null )
{
   throw new Error( "Only one MVC instance should be
instantiated.  Use MVC.instance instead." );

RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Cor]

Yes Radley, you described me perfectly.  :-)
I am at point 2) 

And I don't want to use the frameworks that are out there, I want to learn
it for myself.

But, thank you for replying!

Cor

-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Radley Marx
Sent: woensdag 20 januari 2010 20:54
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for
non-programmers)



Don't let the programmers on the list intimidate you into learning a bunch
of framework mumbo-jumbo. If you learned Flash/Flex after earning a Computer
Science degree, it makes sense because they *start* with OOP day one in
school. But for creative Flash peeps, frameworks are a Brazilian black hole
best left to *cough* experts.

The basics of MVC are:

Model - this means "data". It's the stuff you want to show (list of stuff,
etc)

View - these are your graphic layouts. Best way to grok what this is for:
think my laptop view, my iPhone view, etc.

Controller - this is the meat of your app. It figures out what data you have
and which view to show it in.


So yeah, MVC is very helpful, especially in the multi-screen age. As for
Cairngorm, PureMVC, etc - leave them alone. Completely. You'll know when
it's time to use them:

1) when you *have* to work with a team that uses them
2) you're advanced enough as a developer that you seek out new ways to
program instead of being creative... *snark*


-radley






On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Cor wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> 
> I hope you don't mind me addressing you of list.
> If you do, please ignore this message and I apologize to you!
> 
> I am trying to grasp the MVC pattern, but it is very hard for me.
> I am looking for a very simple example which explains the way it works.
> If you can help me with this, I would be very greatful.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> Kind regards
> Cor van Dooren
> The Netherlands
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> [mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Merrill,
> Jason
> Sent: dinsdag 19 januari 2010 17:35
> To: Flash Coders List
> Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework
> 
> This is my opinion, I'm sure others will have their own that may differ
> (and probably recommend you check out some frameworks  - though that can
> be a lot to tackle) :  the controller would listen to the model to know
> when the data is ready and available.  It would then tell the view to
> start building.  The main class would hold the references to the model,
> view, controller, but would not command any classes to do anything
> really.  You could have the view listen to the model as well and skip
> the controller doing it, but I like the view to be more decoupled than
> that.  I usually try and keep most listeners in the controller where
> possible, though many end up in the view, depending on the situation.  I
> never have listeners in the model though, only events that are
> dispatched.  
> 
> I actually have the model start and do it's own XML loading, but you
> could have the controller tell it to do that, just seems like an
> unnecessary step.
> 
> Another thing I do is have a main class called MVC that extends Sprite
> or DisplayObject which initializes the model, view, controller, in
> order, dispatches an event when all three are initialized, and provides
> access to each via a singleton implementation.  It allows me to access
> any part of a model, view, controller from any other part just by
> calling MVC.instance.  Then it's just var _mvc:MVC = MVC.instancel; then
> _mvc.model.myprop or _mvc.view.update() or whatever. That class looks
> like this:
> 
> package mvc
> {
>   import events.MVCEvent;
>   import events.view.ViewEvent;
>   import events.controller.ControllerEvent;
>   import events.model.ModelEvent;
>   import mvc.controller.Controller;
>   import mvc.model.Model;
>   import mvc.view.View;
>   import flash.display.Sprite;
>   /**
>* ...
>* @author Jason Merrill - Bank of America
>*/
>   public class MVC extends Sprite
>   {   
>   public var view:View;
>   public var model:Model;
>   public var controller:Controller;
>   
>   private static var _instance:MVC;
>   
>   public function MVC() 
>   {   
>   if ( _instance != null )
>   {
>throw new Error( "Only one MVC instance should be
> instantiated.  Use MVC.instance instead." );
>   }
>else
>   {
>   _instance = this;
>   }
>   }
>   
>   public function initialize():void
>   {
>   model = new Model();
>   view

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework (for non-programmers)

[Radley Marx]

Don't let the programmers on the list intimidate you into learning a bunch of 
framework mumbo-jumbo. If you learned Flash/Flex after earning a Computer 
Science degree, it makes sense because they *start* with OOP day one in school. 
But for creative Flash peeps, frameworks are a Brazilian black hole best left 
to *cough* experts.

The basics of MVC are:

Model - this means "data". It's the stuff you want to show (list of stuff, etc)

View - these are your graphic layouts. Best way to grok what this is for: think 
my laptop view, my iPhone view, etc.

Controller - this is the meat of your app. It figures out what data you have 
and which view to show it in.


So yeah, MVC is very helpful, especially in the multi-screen age. As for 
Cairngorm, PureMVC, etc - leave them alone. Completely. You'll know when it's 
time to use them:

1) when you *have* to work with a team that uses them
2) you're advanced enough as a developer that you seek out new ways to program 
instead of being creative... *snark*


-radley






On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Cor wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> 
> I hope you don't mind me addressing you of list.
> If you do, please ignore this message and I apologize to you!
> 
> I am trying to grasp the MVC pattern, but it is very hard for me.
> I am looking for a very simple example which explains the way it works.
> If you can help me with this, I would be very greatful.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> Kind regards
> Cor van Dooren
> The Netherlands
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> [mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Merrill,
> Jason
> Sent: dinsdag 19 januari 2010 17:35
> To: Flash Coders List
> Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework
> 
> This is my opinion, I'm sure others will have their own that may differ
> (and probably recommend you check out some frameworks  - though that can
> be a lot to tackle) :  the controller would listen to the model to know
> when the data is ready and available.  It would then tell the view to
> start building.  The main class would hold the references to the model,
> view, controller, but would not command any classes to do anything
> really.  You could have the view listen to the model as well and skip
> the controller doing it, but I like the view to be more decoupled than
> that.  I usually try and keep most listeners in the controller where
> possible, though many end up in the view, depending on the situation.  I
> never have listeners in the model though, only events that are
> dispatched.  
> 
> I actually have the model start and do it's own XML loading, but you
> could have the controller tell it to do that, just seems like an
> unnecessary step.
> 
> Another thing I do is have a main class called MVC that extends Sprite
> or DisplayObject which initializes the model, view, controller, in
> order, dispatches an event when all three are initialized, and provides
> access to each via a singleton implementation.  It allows me to access
> any part of a model, view, controller from any other part just by
> calling MVC.instance.  Then it's just var _mvc:MVC = MVC.instancel; then
> _mvc.model.myprop or _mvc.view.update() or whatever. That class looks
> like this:
> 
> package mvc
> {
>   import events.MVCEvent;
>   import events.view.ViewEvent;
>   import events.controller.ControllerEvent;
>   import events.model.ModelEvent;
>   import mvc.controller.Controller;
>   import mvc.model.Model;
>   import mvc.view.View;
>   import flash.display.Sprite;
>   /**
>* ...
>* @author Jason Merrill - Bank of America
>*/
>   public class MVC extends Sprite
>   {   
>   public var view:View;
>   public var model:Model;
>   public var controller:Controller;
>   
>   private static var _instance:MVC;
>   
>   public function MVC() 
>   {   
>   if ( _instance != null )
>   {
>throw new Error( "Only one MVC instance should be
> instantiated.  Use MVC.instance instead." );
>   }
>else
>   {
>   _instance = this;
>   }
>   }
>   
>   public function initialize():void
>   {
>   model = new Model();
>   view = new View();
>   controller = new Controller();
>   
>   model.addEventListener(ModelEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onModelInitialized);
>   
> controller.addEventListener(ControllerEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onControllerInitialized);
>   view.addEventListener(ViewEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onViewInitialized);
>   
>   model.initialize();
>   }
>

RE: [Flashcoders] RE: Using MVC for a site framework

[Cor]

Thanks guys!
I am overwelmed with all these tips.
I need some time to study it all, but don't hold back! :-)

Cor



-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Fox
Sent: woensdag 20 januari 2010 18:16
To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Subject: [Flashcoders] RE: Using MVC for a site framework

Cor,
I found two really good starter tutorials on MVC and posted on my blog. My
FoxR library also provides an MVC structure based on PureMVC and an example
of how to implement it.

http://foxr.aeoliandigital.com/archives/134

I also think Cairngorm, while similar to PureMVC, is not as intuitive and
best suited to Flex. Mate, while simpler, is written for Flex. no experience
yet with RobotLegs myself.

Hope that helps,
-Jeff
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: 01/19/10
08:34:00

___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

[Flashcoders] RE: Using MVC for a site framework

[Jeff Fox]

Cor,
I found two really good starter tutorials on MVC and posted on my blog. My
FoxR library also provides an MVC structure based on PureMVC and an example
of how to implement it.

http://foxr.aeoliandigital.com/archives/134

I also think Cairngorm, while similar to PureMVC, is not as intuitive and
best suited to Flex. Mate, while simpler, is written for Flex. no experience
yet with RobotLegs myself.

Hope that helps,
-Jeff
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

[Merrill, Jason]

I found Cairngorm extremely verbose, complicated, non-intuitive, but
quite powerful.  Better suited for Flex. 


Jason Merrill 

 Bank of  America  Global Learning 
Learning & Performance Soluions

Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Community  and visit our
Instructional Technology Design Blog
(note: these are for Bank of America employees only)






-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of John
McCormack
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:22 AM
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

-10 sounds a teensy bit harsh. Had to laugh!
I guess Cairngorm was good once.

Tell me Piers, _why_ do you like RobotLegs so much better than PureMVC?

I haven't used either but I could certainly use a good MVC approach.

John


Piers Cowburn wrote:
> +1 for RobotLegs (I used to use PureMVC, and still do, but I've really
enjoyed getting into RobotLegs)
>
>
> -10 for Cairngorm
>
>
> Piers
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2010, at 11:29, John McCormack wrote:
>
>   
>> Steven,
>>
>> Have you found it better than pureMVC and Cairngorm?
>>
>> John
>>
>> Steven Sacks wrote:
>> 
>>> Want to do MVC right?  Use this:
>>>
>>> http://www.robotlegs.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
>
>
>   


___
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 this is done?

[Merrill, Jason]

Geez - that site took eons to load.


Jason Merrill 

 Bank of  America  Global Learning 
Learning & Performance Soluions

Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Community  and visit our
Instructional Technology Design Blog
(note: these are for Bank of America employees only)





-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of skoo
viya
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Subject: [Flashcoders] How this is done?

http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1263055474592RA80


-- 
Cheers,
skooviya
___
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] Adobe cancelled the Distributable Player Solution..?

[Andrew Murphy]

Hi.

I noticed on Adobe Labs that the Distributable Player Solution beta has
ended, and they will not be taking it into production:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/distributableplayer/

Does anyone know the reason behind this?

I was excited when I first heard about it.  Being able to develop in Flash
to create applications that would install as an application and run directly
on my mobile device, rather than in the Flash player, turned me on about as
much as when I first learned about "Apollo".

Why would they drop such a great idea? :(


--
Andrew Murphy
Interactive Media Developer
amur...@delvinia.com

Delvinia
370 King Street West, 5th Floor, Box 4 
Toronto Canada M5V 1J9
P (416) 364-1455 ext. 232
F (416) 364-9830  
W www.delvinia.com  



  


___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

[Piers Cowburn]

Haha, sorry, that was a bit off the cuff :)

Like I said, I still use PureMVC, especially if I've got large parts of a 
PureMVC based app that I can reuse in a new one. But RobotLegs removes the 
extra typing that PureMVC requires to get hold of things (retrieving 
mediators/proxies, etc).

To be clear though, I was more than happy with the extra bits of code that are 
associated with PureMVC, especially once you have code templates set up for the 
various retrieve/register bits. Adding/typing them becomes trivial, and it's 
more than worth it for the cleanliness and level of organisation that PureMVC 
gives you. But they're still kind of littered throughout the app. With 
RobotLegs things just happen, you don't have to worry about it, you can still 
lay out your app in the exact same way as you would with PureMVC, but if a 
class needs access to the model, it's automatically plumbed in by the 
framework. Just strips out those bits.

Piers


On 20 Jan 2010, at 12:21, John McCormack wrote:

> -10 sounds a teensy bit harsh. Had to laugh!
> I guess Cairngorm was good once.
> 
> Tell me Piers, _why_ do you like RobotLegs so much better than PureMVC?
> 
> I haven't used either but I could certainly use a good MVC approach.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> Piers Cowburn wrote:
>> +1 for RobotLegs (I used to use PureMVC, and still do, but I've really 
>> enjoyed getting into RobotLegs)
>> 
>> 
>> -10 for Cairngorm
>> 
>> 
>> Piers
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Jan 2010, at 11:29, John McCormack wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Steven,
>>> 
>>> Have you found it better than pureMVC and Cairngorm?
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> Steven Sacks wrote:
>>>
 Want to do MVC right?  Use this:
 
 http://www.robotlegs.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
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Using MVC for a site framework

[John McCormack]

-10 sounds a teensy bit harsh. Had to laugh!
I guess Cairngorm was good once.

Tell me Piers, _why_ do you like RobotLegs so much better than PureMVC?

I haven't used either but I could certainly use a good MVC approach.

John


Piers Cowburn wrote:

+1 for RobotLegs (I used to use PureMVC, and still do, but I've really enjoyed 
getting into RobotLegs)


-10 for Cairngorm


Piers


On 20 Jan 2010, at 11:29, John McCormack wrote:

  

Steven,

Have you found it better than pureMVC and Cairngorm?

John

Steven Sacks wrote:


Want to do MVC right?  Use this:

http://www.robotlegs.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


  



___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] How this is done?

[Paul Andrews]

Santhakumar K wrote:

Thanks Paul and Henrik,

   How  to do transformation of a masked image to synchronized with video,
any sample tutorial or demo available. I have no clue of achieving this
effect.


  

First of all look at how an image can be masked.
Then look at distorting images.
Then look at synchronising with video.

Put it all together and you have it done (your example looks like it has 
some layering tricks too)


Start with one small thing and then progress - don't think about 
tackling it all at once. You can find links to tutorials on these 
subjects quite easily via google. Putting it all together won't be quite 
so easy, but everyone has to start somewhere.


Paul




On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Henrik Andersson wrote:

  

Uhm, the swfobject javascript class?

If you want details, please elaborate. Even better, ask whoever made the
site.

___
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] Using MVC for a site framework

[Piers Cowburn]

+1 for RobotLegs (I used to use PureMVC, and still do, but I've really enjoyed 
getting into RobotLegs)





-10 for Cairngorm


Piers


On 20 Jan 2010, at 11:29, John McCormack wrote:

> Steven,
> 
> Have you found it better than pureMVC and Cairngorm?
> 
> John
> 
> Steven Sacks wrote:
>> Want to do MVC right?  Use this:
>> 
>> http://www.robotlegs.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] Using MVC for a site framework

[John McCormack]

Steven,

Have you found it better than pureMVC and Cairngorm?

John

Steven Sacks wrote:

Want to do MVC right?  Use this:

http://www.robotlegs.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

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

[allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com)]

i would recommend the o'reilly design patterns book - it gives a very simple
mvc triad and then expands it with other patterns (like using the composite
pattern for nesting views)

i did find a video that did a good job of explaining a quick mvc triad but
it didn't go into detail about why it is set up that way and i can't find it
right now

hope this helps
a


On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Cor  wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> I hope you don't mind me addressing you of list.
> If you do, please ignore this message and I apologize to you!
>
> I am trying to grasp the MVC pattern, but it is very hard for me.
> I am looking for a very simple example which explains the way it works.
> If you can help me with this, I would be very greatful.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kind regards
> Cor van Dooren
> The Netherlands
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> [mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Merrill,
> Jason
> Sent: dinsdag 19 januari 2010 17:35
> To: Flash Coders List
> Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework
>
> This is my opinion, I'm sure others will have their own that may differ
> (and probably recommend you check out some frameworks  - though that can
> be a lot to tackle) :  the controller would listen to the model to know
> when the data is ready and available.  It would then tell the view to
> start building.  The main class would hold the references to the model,
> view, controller, but would not command any classes to do anything
> really.  You could have the view listen to the model as well and skip
> the controller doing it, but I like the view to be more decoupled than
> that.  I usually try and keep most listeners in the controller where
> possible, though many end up in the view, depending on the situation.  I
> never have listeners in the model though, only events that are
> dispatched.
>
> I actually have the model start and do it's own XML loading, but you
> could have the controller tell it to do that, just seems like an
> unnecessary step.
>
> Another thing I do is have a main class called MVC that extends Sprite
> or DisplayObject which initializes the model, view, controller, in
> order, dispatches an event when all three are initialized, and provides
> access to each via a singleton implementation.  It allows me to access
> any part of a model, view, controller from any other part just by
> calling MVC.instance.  Then it's just var _mvc:MVC = MVC.instancel; then
> _mvc.model.myprop or _mvc.view.update() or whatever. That class looks
> like this:
>
> package mvc
> {
>import events.MVCEvent;
>import events.view.ViewEvent;
>import events.controller.ControllerEvent;
>import events.model.ModelEvent;
>import mvc.controller.Controller;
>import mvc.model.Model;
>import mvc.view.View;
>import flash.display.Sprite;
>/**
> * ...
> * @author Jason Merrill - Bank of America
> */
>public class MVC extends Sprite
>{
>public var view:View;
>public var model:Model;
>public var controller:Controller;
>
>private static var _instance:MVC;
>
>public function MVC()
>{
>if ( _instance != null )
>{
>throw new Error( "Only one MVC instance should be
> instantiated.  Use MVC.instance instead." );
>}
>else
>{
>_instance = this;
>}
>}
>
>public function initialize():void
>{
>model = new Model();
>view = new View();
>controller = new Controller();
>
>model.addEventListener(ModelEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onModelInitialized);
>
> controller.addEventListener(ControllerEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onControllerInitialized);
>view.addEventListener(ViewEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onViewInitialized);
>
>model.initialize();
>}
>
>private function
> onModelInitialized(event:ModelEvent):void
>{
>
> model.removeEventListener(ModelEvent.INITIALIZED, onModelInitialized);
>view.initialize();
>}
>
>private function onViewInitialized(event:ViewEvent):void
>{
>addChild(view);
>view.removeEventListener(ViewEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onViewInitialized);
>controller.initialize();
>}
>
>private function
> onControllerInitialized(event:ControllerEvent):void
>{
>
> controller.removeEventListener(ControllerEvent.INITIALIZED,
> onControllerInitialized);
>disp

Re: [Flashcoders] How this is done?

[Santhakumar K]

Thanks Paul and Henrik,

   How  to do transformation of a masked image to synchronized with video,
any sample tutorial or demo available. I have no clue of achieving this
effect.






On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Henrik Andersson wrote:

> Uhm, the swfobject javascript class?
>
> If you want details, please elaborate. Even better, ask whoever made the
> site.
>
> ___
> Flashcoders mailing list
> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>



-- 
SK
http://www.my3dwall.com
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript certificate

[Glen Pike]

Hi,

   Have a look at the "Adobe Certified Professional" / "Adobe Certified 
Expert" programs


   http://www.adobe.com/support/certification/

Glen

ktt wrote:

Hello,

Is there any Actionscript(or Flash) certificate like a well known and respected 
Zend PHP? I think after appearance of Actionscript 3 is time to have one..
Maybe Adobe has some programs?

Ktt


  
___

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] Actionscript certificate

[ktt]

Hello,

Is there any Actionscript(or Flash) certificate like a well known and respected 
Zend PHP? I think after appearance of Actionscript 3 is time to have one..
Maybe Adobe has some programs?

Ktt


  
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] How this is done?

[Henrik Andersson]

Uhm, the swfobject javascript class?

If you want details, please elaborate. Even better, ask whoever made the 
site.

___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

Re: [Flashcoders] Using MVC for a site framework

[John McCormack]

I tend to back off when there is more than I can grasp, in case I can't 
control it,

so it was nice to see this example:
http://examples.robotlegs.org/googlemaps/index.html

John


Steven Sacks wrote:

Want to do MVC right?  Use this:

http://www.robotlegs.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

Re: [Flashcoders] How this is done?

[Paul Andrews]

skoo viya wrote:

http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1263055474592RA80


  

Transformation of a masked image synchronised with  video. Great job.
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders