On 11/7/13 4:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/7/13 4:35 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by >>some >> >> capability in the tool chain to verify a configuration, maybe by >>marking >> >> some values as required. In production, you hopefully don't need >>these >> >> kinds of checks. I've also floated the idea of "debug-mode" beads >>which >> >> have more checks than production beads. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> > >> >Personally, I don't like the idea of setting the bead values in CSS. >>It >> >makes it hard to enforce these kind of things. Ideally, the absence >>of a >> >bead that the code is looking for should generate a compile error. >> > >> >Another way to inject beads would be to use metadata attributes. >> >Something >> >along the lines of spark skins' [SkinPart(required="true")] metadata >> >attribute. Would this make it easier to do the checks? >> That would help with the check, but are you also proposing naming the >> default value in the metadata? >> >> >Yes, setting the default values in metadata would be great. It is more in >tune with how Flex works in today. Maybe I'm not understanding. SkinPart doesn't set a default value. Lots of things are set in defaults.css. What metadata are you thinking of? -Alex
