Re: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
Thanks for the information all. The same goes for us ofcourse, if we knew ahead of time that the components are required to be used in the framework we would have never bought them. One could say it's wrong of us to assume they'll just work stand-alone but if the author doesn't mention anything about the framework on his site we just assume it'll work stand-alone and don't conflict with other components or other frameworks. Imo that should be requirement number one for a good component set anyway. Maybe a scam is a harsh word since I'm sure the author put a lot of work in the components but you don't just forget to mention such a huge detail by accident. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
Maybe a scam is a harsh word ... but you don't just forget to mention such a huge detail by accident. I sold you a car that looks fairly new. It will get you from point A to point B. I forgot to mention that it's not street legal and it runs on leaded fuel. What's the word for that? ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage anyways. Scott On 28/06/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience exactly :-(. Perhaps I will be able to use them in a future project, but as for now, money down the drain. Had it been clearly stated on the site that the comoponents can't be used stand-alone, I would not have purchased them. Of course, they're non-refundable. I somehow doubt he would sell his components if people knew ahead of time they weren't meant to be used stand-alone. Hence, they're not really components, but pieces of a larger framework, which you are not only purchasing, but must take the time to learn HIS way of coding which means you can't work using your own methods, nor can you put his components into an existing application. In my case, over last couple of weeks, I have received no response to multiple inquiries regarding the components. Initially I was very polite and just asked for some examples/help, but I'm sure my later messages must have had a somewhat annoyed tone :-. IMO, it's a scam. But, that's just my opinion. You can formulate your own. By the way, the author is on Flashcoders (or at least was a year ago). Maybe if enough people start exposing his components for what they are, he'll chime in. -Steven Are the Ghostwire components still being developed further or added to? Ville -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:01 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set What is not entirely clear on the website is that the XPComponents are NOT designed to be used as standalone components in YOUR application, but are meant to be used when you build applications using the DEVELOPERS' EXACT framework. We paid for the components but found out very quickly that they wouldn't work for us because they caused all kinds of issues with Selection, tabIndex, and other non-XP components. I don't want this to sound disparaging, as the author of the components was very helpful when I asked him about the issues I was having, however, I disagree with his approach. The website doesn't explain clearly that you cannot just throw one of his components in your movie and expect it to work, or that using his components in your movie can break your existing code and won't get along with other components (MMs or other 3rd party ones) or even with Flash's native code (like Selection and tabIndex). You MUST use the exact framework he has developed from the get go. To me, it's kind of misleading to simply call them components, since you're actually purchasing a framework which contains custom components to work within that framework. If you're looking for great, lightweight, skinnable components you can just throw into your existing code, I recommend the Ghostwire components set. I have had a lot of success with them. They're written in AS1 but AS2 compiles as AS1 anyway and their ease of use, skinnability, and ability to get along with your existing code make them a winner in my book. http://www.ghostwire.com/ HTH, Steven ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage anyways. It's not just MM's components it doesn't work with, it's Flash in general. When you put ANY of their components in your movie, the following Flash native code no longer works. Selection.setFocus TextField.tabIndex Like I mentioned before, they are amazingly helpful and polite. It doesn't change the fact that their components don't work standalone, that you must code how they tell you to code and use their framework to code all your Flash applications, that it's not made clear that this is a requirement for using their components prior to purchase, and they and everyone else here know full well that pretty much no one would buy their components if they knew ahead of time about this restriction, yes, it's a scam. Just because you put a lot of hard work into something doesn't automatically make it valuable. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
I don't see why that matters exactly? Scott On 29/06/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage anyways. It's not just MM's components it doesn't work with, it's Flash in general. When you put ANY of their components in your movie, the following Flash native code no longer works. Selection.setFocus TextField.tabIndex Like I mentioned before, they are amazingly helpful and polite. It doesn't change the fact that their components don't work standalone, that you must code how they tell you to code and use their framework to code all your Flash applications, that it's not made clear that this is a requirement for using their components prior to purchase, and they and everyone else here know full well that pretty much no one would buy their components if they knew ahead of time about this restriction, yes, it's a scam. Just because you put a lot of hard work into something doesn't automatically make it valuable. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
that pretty much no one would buy their components if they knew ahead of time about this restriction I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in using frameworks and using them completely. Making a viable frmaework that will integrate nicely with everyone in the world's swf is pretty much impossible. There are always tradeoffs: adopt the framework, you give some things up, but you get others. Depending on their needs, some people will make that trade, others won't. So I disagree with the point above. But I agree that they should make their strategy clear on their site. Jim Kremens On 6/29/06, Scott Hyndman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why that matters exactly? Scott On 29/06/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage anyways. It's not just MM's components it doesn't work with, it's Flash in general. When you put ANY of their components in your movie, the following Flash native code no longer works. Selection.setFocus TextField.tabIndex Like I mentioned before, they are amazingly helpful and polite. It doesn't change the fact that their components don't work standalone, that you must code how they tell you to code and use their framework to code all your Flash applications, that it's not made clear that this is a requirement for using their components prior to purchase, and they and everyone else here know full well that pretty much no one would buy their components if they knew ahead of time about this restriction, yes, it's a scam. Just because you put a lot of hard work into something doesn't automatically make it valuable. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- Jim Kremens ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
Steven Sacks | BLITZ schrieb: I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage anyways. It's not just MM's components it doesn't work with, it's Flash in general. When you put ANY of their components in your movie, the following Flash native code no longer works. Selection.setFocus TextField.tabIndex that is indeed bad, as long as this framework doesn't handle this stuff instead. i don't know if it does. Like I mentioned before, they are amazingly helpful and polite. It doesn't change the fact that their components don't work standalone, that you must code how they tell you to code and use their framework to code all your Flash applications, that it's not made clear that this is a requirement for using their components MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ? micha ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in using frameworks and using them completely. We have to agree to disagree on this one. There are always tradeoffs: adopt the framework, you give some things up, but you get others. Depending on their needs, some people will make that trade, others won't. Frameworks shouldn't restrict your workflow, they should assist it. It's not like Rails makes other parts of Ruby break. It's not like Cake or Zend break parts of PHP. They don't force you to work in a specific way using only their components. They are extremely well thought out, flexible frameworks that help developers, not hinder them. Nobody is jumping up and down shouting how great XP Components is, but there's plenty of buzz about Rails and Cake and Zend. There is no good reason for XP components to not play nicely with anybody else. I think it's a poor framework because no matter how good it might be at what it does, what it does is limited. The primary reason it's not a good framework is that it's not flexible. It forces you to develop in a very specific way. It forces you to use only their components. If you don't, your apps don't work right. When new versions of Flash come out, and new code doesn't work, and you've invested all this time learning a framework that is so restrictive and inflexible, you will be the one who suffers, not them. They made their money off you already. But I agree that they should make their strategy clear on their site. Absolutely. Plenty of people purchase the XP components because 1) They look like really good components 2) It's not clear that you have to only use their components 3) It's entirely unclear that you also have to build your root movie with two frames, with one of their primary components loading in the rest of your application. Many developers buy components in the middle of a project because they need some kind of functionality and either MM's components are cutting it, or they're trying to save coding time. XP Components are NOT designed for that. They're designed to be used from the ground floor of an application, to be built entirely within the XP framework. Therefore, anyone who buys XP Components expecting them to HELP them in that situation is going to be extremely disappointed, and is going to be out $349. They just got scammed because they didn't take the time to read the insane amount of documentation you have to read to even find out these FACTS about the system. They think, how hard can it be to implement a component? I'll refer to the documentation after I purchase. Little do they know that if they only spent an hour or so reading documentation, they'd find out that these components are not actually components, but a very specific framework for developing applications. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ? With the exception of the DRK series of components, MM's components came free with Flash. And I don't recall any MM components that caused other things to break in your application. The components themselves were buggy and certain components didn't play nicely with others, but they didn't require you to build your application in a very specific way. The scam is not that the XP Components break native Flash code. The scam is that they're not components, it's an entire architecture you must adhere to but they call them components on their website, IMPLYING that they are COMPONENTS not a FRAMEWORK. XPFramework would be honest. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
DepthManager and FocusManager cause a few headaches for people used to working without the MM components. Granted, nowhere near as bad as XP is sounding in this thread, but still... -mark hawley From: Steven Sacks | BLITZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/29 Thu PM 02:39:22 CDT To: Flashcoders mailing list flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ? With the exception of the DRK series of components, MM's components came free with Flash. And I don't recall any MM components that caused other things to break in your application. The components themselves were buggy and certain components didn't play nicely with others, but they didn't require you to build your application in a very specific way. The scam is not that the XP Components break native Flash code. The scam is that they're not components, it's an entire architecture you must adhere to but they call them components on their website, IMPLYING that they are COMPONENTS not a FRAMEWORK. XPFramework would be honest. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Mark Hawley The Nilbog Group 773.968.4980 (cell) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in using frameworks and using them completely. We have to agree to disagree on this one. Thinking about it again, I think you're right on one point. There's certainly no reason that using their framework should break native Flash code. That's just sloppy. But, as it is a framework, I think it's totally legit that it makes you do certain things certain ways. It's not like Rails makes other parts of Ruby break. Case in point - to use Rails, you must do things inn VERY specific ways. Rails is all about convention, and if you don't adhere to its conventions, you will be boned. To sum up, my point is that frameworks shouldn't break anything. But also that people should expect when using a framework that they might have to do things in certain ways. Seems obvious, but wasn't clear in my last post... That's all, Jim Kremens On 6/29/06, John Mark Hawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DepthManager and FocusManager cause a few headaches for people used to working without the MM components. Granted, nowhere near as bad as XP is sounding in this thread, but still... -mark hawley From: Steven Sacks | BLITZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/29 Thu PM 02:39:22 CDT To: Flashcoders mailing list flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ? With the exception of the DRK series of components, MM's components came free with Flash. And I don't recall any MM components that caused other things to break in your application. The components themselves were buggy and certain components didn't play nicely with others, but they didn't require you to build your application in a very specific way. The scam is not that the XP Components break native Flash code. The scam is that they're not components, it's an entire architecture you must adhere to but they call them components on their website, IMPLYING that they are COMPONENTS not a FRAMEWORK. XPFramework would be honest. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Mark Hawley The Nilbog Group 773.968.4980 (cell) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- Jim Kremens ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
Thinking about it again, I think you're right on one point. There's certainly no reason that using their framework should break native Flash code. That's just sloppy. But, as it is a framework, I think it's totally legit that it makes you do certain things certain ways. I wouldn't say XPComponents _breaks_ native code...it just chooses not to use it, abstracting it away into an API that they designed themselves. In my opinion this is perfectly acceptable and maybe even desirable if additional functionality is provided as a result. Scott ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
Case in point - to use Rails, you must do things inn VERY specific ways. Rails is all about convention, and if you don't adhere to its conventions, you will be boned. Not true. For example, one of the conventions Rails uses to make things easier is their naming conventions, specifically, pluralization. You make your MySQL database tables plural, like comments. You then name your class Comment and it knows to look in the database for the table named comments. However, you don't have to use this. You can manually override this at the top of your class and point it to the proper table in your database. This is the kind of flexibility and power that come with a well thought out framework. I don't find XP Components to be a very pragmatic framework, and as such, it's not of much use to me. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
My experience exactly :-(. Perhaps I will be able to use them in a future project, but as for now, money down the drain. Had it been clearly stated on the site that the comoponents can't be used stand-alone, I would not have purchased them. Of course, they're non-refundable. I somehow doubt he would sell his components if people knew ahead of time they weren't meant to be used stand-alone. Hence, they're not really components, but pieces of a larger framework, which you are not only purchasing, but must take the time to learn HIS way of coding which means you can't work using your own methods, nor can you put his components into an existing application. In my case, over last couple of weeks, I have received no response to multiple inquiries regarding the components. Initially I was very polite and just asked for some examples/help, but I'm sure my later messages must have had a somewhat annoyed tone :-. IMO, it's a scam. But, that's just my opinion. You can formulate your own. By the way, the author is on Flashcoders (or at least was a year ago). Maybe if enough people start exposing his components for what they are, he'll chime in. -Steven Are the Ghostwire components still being developed further or added to? Ville -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:01 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set What is not entirely clear on the website is that the XPComponents are NOT designed to be used as standalone components in YOUR application, but are meant to be used when you build applications using the DEVELOPERS' EXACT framework. We paid for the components but found out very quickly that they wouldn't work for us because they caused all kinds of issues with Selection, tabIndex, and other non-XP components. I don't want this to sound disparaging, as the author of the components was very helpful when I asked him about the issues I was having, however, I disagree with his approach. The website doesn't explain clearly that you cannot just throw one of his components in your movie and expect it to work, or that using his components in your movie can break your existing code and won't get along with other components (MMs or other 3rd party ones) or even with Flash's native code (like Selection and tabIndex). You MUST use the exact framework he has developed from the get go. To me, it's kind of misleading to simply call them components, since you're actually purchasing a framework which contains custom components to work within that framework. If you're looking for great, lightweight, skinnable components you can just throw into your existing code, I recommend the Ghostwire components set. I have had a lot of success with them. They're written in AS1 but AS2 compiles as AS1 anyway and their ease of use, skinnability, and ability to get along with your existing code make them a winner in my book. http://www.ghostwire.com/ HTH, Steven ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
