Once an Application gets hung on a div it’s going to have all those properties (unless it’s on the view).
The reason we made it IUIBase was because addElement() was expecting the parent to be one. On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > I was merging stuff and noticed that Application got changed to be an > IUIBase. I agree that's tempting, and DivApplication or whatever would > need to be an IUIBase, but IMO, Application doesn't really behave like > other child components. I saw that stubs were added for alpha, visible, > x, y that don't do anything. I'd rather get an error that my code is > about to make a call that doesn't do anything. > > In my mind, Application is not really a display object. In MXML, lots of > non-display stuff gets hung off of it. That's why it currently has an > initial view. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > On 8/1/16, 1:21 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was thinking that the application would be attached to <body> >> automatically if the id does not exist (or if the id is not specified). >> >> I don’t see a reason to make it more complicated than that (i.e. beads or >> separate classes) >> >> On Aug 1, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Subclassing is probably a better options because DivApplication will be >>> required to implement IUIBase whereas the current Application is not. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Alex Harui<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 7:19 AM >>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: FlexJS Application >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/31/16, 8:29 PM, "piotrz" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Harbs, >>>> >>>> I think this functionality should be optional. Maybe it should be some >>>> kind >>>> of bead. Can it be? >>> >>> Or maybe just a different application class "DivApplication" or >>> something >>> like that. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >> >
