It’s the view as well, and why? I’m missing something. It’s used for both HTML
and SWF.
On Aug 9, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Image model is only needed on the swf2
>
> Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Harbs
> Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 12:36 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org;
> Subject:Re: FlexJS Image.source
>
> Base64 as a src is a totally separate issue than what I’m talking about.
>
> That will work with the current Image implementation as is on the HTML side.
> No modification necessary. I’m pretty sure the Flash implementation would
> need to convert the Base64.
>
> As an aside:
>
> Why are so many of the HTML classes imports wrapped in COMPILE::SWF blocks?
>
> i.e.:
>
> COMPILE::SWF
> {
> import org.apache.flex.html.beads.models.ImageModel;
> ImageModel;
> import org.apache.flex.html.beads.models.ImageAndTextModel;
> ImageAndTextModel;
> }
>
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:32 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 8/8/16, 10:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Can't we implement the url as well as the binary image using css?
> >>
> >> For examle a url source:
> >> <img width="16" height="16" alt="star" src="image/star.png" />
> >>
> >> For example a binary source:
> >> <img width="16" height="16" alt="star"
> >> src="
> >> chPGolfO0o/XBs/fNwfjZ0frl3/zy7////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAkAABAALAAAAAAQABAAAAVVICSOZGlCQAosJ6mu7fiyZeK
> >> qNKToQGDsM8hBADgUXoGAiqhSvp5QAnQKGIgUhwFUYLCVDFCrKUE1lBavAViFIDlTImbKC5Gm2
> >> hB0SlBCBMQiB0UjIQA7" />
> >>
> >> Both are named source and a UrlSource would be identical to the url and a
> >> BinarySource would be the base64 encoded presentation.
> >> I can't see how there should be problems with mapping this to Flash
> >
> > I'm missing what is "css" about this, but sure if the binary is encoded as
> > a string a different ImageView could figure out what to do. I would do it
> > as a separate ImageView because I wouldn't always want to search every URL
> > for "data:image/gif" just to see if it might be binary. IMO, that is
> > PAYG. Don't force everyone to have their source strings scanned since we
> > know lots of people won't need it.
> >
> > I think the downside is also that each instance of the Image has to base64
> > decode the string. They can't share an instance of the decoded Blob. So
> > there can be an ImageView that requires a String, and Harbs can create a
> > different ImageView that accepts a "binary" property or something else.
> > We don't have to decide now. Just make sure simple version that assumes
> > non-binary string exists for simple cases, and create richer versions for
> > other scenarios.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
