10:54 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] MXML Components and using mx:Effect
hmm
thanks for that gordon,
I wonder if MM will ever allow us to do new MovieClip instead of
createEmptyMovieClip etc..
i've seen some MovieClip.prototype workarounds for this but *sigh*
ssage-
> From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:44 PM
> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] MXML Components and using mx:Effect
>
> Yup, sorry I knew all that anyway (I'm a vetran Flash MX 2004 monkey
> hehe) i
ect is simply garbage-collected.
6. MovieClip is a Flash-specific class, while Object is a class of the
standard EcmaScript language.
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:44 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: R
Yup, sorry I knew all that anyway (I'm a vetran Flash MX 2004 monkey
hehe) i was more looking for info on MovieClip vs Object under the
hood. Haven't you all wondered or pondered as to what the significant
difference between the two are?
A MovieClip extends Object but what changes or difference d
On 4/12/05, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, probably outside the scope of this thread but whats the
> difference between a MovieClip and an Object (ie technically, i know
> MovieClip adds "timeline" to the equation etc.. but how is a MovieClip
> Constructed vs a plain object)
An
Ooops
index.mxml (ie var tmp =
this.createObjectClass(yourpath.to.yourmxmlfile,"name");
tmp["testItem"].getTestMethod(); // will invoke the RemoteObject
within the mxml movieclip.
-
should be inside its own mx:Script tag etc.
On Apr 12, 2005 4:29 PM, Scott Barnes <[EM
Ok Mr Matt,
Got another one for you (or anyone else)
Say I have the need to create a MXML component for the sake of making
life easier by allowing access to mx:Tag based approach (aswell as
script).
if i do something like this:
http://www.macromedia.com/2003/mxml";
initialize="doSomething()">
aye thanks matt.
On Apr 12, 2005 2:00 PM, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nope, in 1.x the tag has special compiler logic that makes it
> impossible for it to live on its own. AS is the only way to get it
> standalone.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> ___
Nope, in 1.x the tag has
special compiler logic that makes it impossible for it to live on its own. AS
is the only way to get it standalone.
Matt
From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:58
PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [f
9 matches
Mail list logo
