Thanks. I’ll clean up BinaryImage as well when I have the opportunity.
On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Peter Ent <[email protected]> wrote: > I updated the defaults.css in the HTML project to include the Image's > model and view for SWF and JS and removed this code fragment. > ―peter > > On 9/12/16, 10:01 AM, "Peter Ent" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I had to go back and look into it all again. This code is necessary. The >> source property is actually stored in the image's model. When this >> property changes, the ImageView bead picks it up and sets it into the >> <img> element, so the ImageView bead is also necessary; the Image needs >> the view in order to detect and handle changes in the model. >> >> However, I think the real change should go into the defaults.css file. >> Right now, the Image's model and view beads are set only for the Flash >> side, which is why the JS side is explicitly creating them. If the >> defaults.css were changed to be universal, then the code you see for the >> JS side would not be needed. >> >> ―peter >> >> >> >> On 9/12/16, 9:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'll have to see what happens when these lines are removed. The Flash >>> side >>> nearly always has model and view beads to build the components but the JS >>> side may not have a view bead since the element (i.e., <img>) is the >>> view. >>> Meaning, the Flash and JS versions aren't always symmetric. I'm not >>> really >>> sure why the JS side would need a view. It may be that I was >>> experimenting >>> with making both sides always follow the same pattern and just checked in >>> that code accidentally. >>> >>> Peter Ent >>> Adobe Systems/Apache Flex Project >>> >>> On 9/12/16, 4:19 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The Image component has the following code which did not make a lot of >>>> sense to me considering it¹s JS-only: >>>> >>>> model = new >>>> ImageModel(); >>>> >>>> addBead(new >>>> ImageView()); >>>> >>>> When trying to figure this out, we realized that this should be >>>> instantiated in UIBase in a more generic fashion. Are we correct in >>>> assuming that this is legacy code and should be removed? >>>> >>>> Harbs >>> >> >
