Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-09 Thread Stephen Downs
I originally was all go to separate the view and code using the source prop in a script tag. What i didn't like about this was that it was a loose link. Code behind makes this a more solid link but after experimenting with that also i've found I end up with some many files open it begins to

RE: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Gordon Smith
? - Gordon From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Anderson Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:43 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind?? Hell

RE: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Mike Anderson
om [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind?? What is your reasoning to use code behind? Why would you want to doub

Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Diego Guebel
IMHO, I think it was very helpful in Flash & Arp ages. As the view was binary code and was very handy to have the code in classes to be able to support version control, unit test, etc. But now since mxml is also a text file I think it does not have too much sense to do that. Besides that you

RE: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Alex Uhlmann
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg Sent: 08 February 2007 21:25 To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind?? This is just my personal view though, i'm not aware of an "official" version

Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Ralf Bokelberg
This is just my personal view though, i'm not aware of an "official" version. Cheers, Ralf. On 2/8/07, Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What is your reasoning to use code behind? Why would you want to double every class and add an additional inheritance layer just to separate Mxml from

Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Ralf Bokelberg
and last but not least you can put your Mxml files into packages just like classes - that's what they really are after all: classes. Cheers Ralf On 2/8/07, Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is just my personal view though, i'm not aware of an "official" version. Cheers, Ralf. On 2

Re: [flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Ralf Bokelberg
What is your reasoning to use code behind? Why would you want to double every class and add an additional inheritance layer just to separate Mxml from ActionScript? Why would you want to declare every component you are using twice, once in AS and the second time in Mxml? Is it to separate presenta

[flexcoders] What's the "official" consensus of using CodeBehind??

2007-02-08 Thread Mike Anderson
Hello All, Could some of you more savvy coders, please take a moment of your valuable time and throw some words of wisdom out there regarding CodeBehind? Since I love using Packages and Classes, it feels very natural for me to use this method. BUT, based on where things are going with Flex, is t