Generally speaking it feels like sometimes I need to insure the order of invocation. Since beads communicate with one another through events it’s difficult to achieve. Regarding the upload response data I understand your suggestion as follows (edges contain event names):
<Strand>--uploadRequested--<controllerForWithResponse (sends request)>---complete---<ModelWithResponse (after controller wrote to model>---modelChanged--<UserClassListening> And for the case where the user isn’t interested in the response, just in the status: <Strand>---uploadRequested--<controllerForWithoutResponse>---complete---<ModelWithoutResponse>--modelChanged--<UserClassListening> Is that right? From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> Subject: Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Add FileUploaderWithResponseData I think I still don't understand. It is ok for beads to require other beads. If a ResponseData bead requires a model with a slot for responseData and a controller that knows to record that data, that's how you are supposed to "re-compose" components. There doesn't have to be one model or controller per component. The strand is a gathering place for small pieces to work together. I'm not sure what work CheckPermissions needs to do, but is totally fine to split its work amongst a set of beads. HTH, -Alex On 7/11/17, 11:21 PM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Ideally we wouldn't have to record data that's never read. This may be an >extreme case, but some users will want to know the response on an upload, >while some will just want to make sure the status is ok. I'd rather not >anticipate too many use cases when writing the strand and the model >because >I might end up with code that's never used. If the bead was responsible >for >both recording the response and exposing it to the user, we wouldn't have >to >do that. > >Perhaps a better example is permissions. I already have an Upload bead. >Now >I want an alert to pop up if the user is not permitted to upload. I'd like >to be able to add a 'CheckPemissionsOnUpload' bead. Right now I don't see >how to do that, instead I would probably have to replace 'UploadBead' with >'UploadButCheckPermissionsBead'. This takes us away from composition and >forces inheritance. > >Maybe we don't need to modify class definitions. I think it's enough to >modify the bead instance. In JS we could simply replace the function, and >in >flash we could maybe replace the whole original bead with a >flash.utils.Proxy. But this will make things a bit complicated to read and >maintain. > > > > > >-- >View this message in context: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle >x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FRe-git-commit-flex-asjs-refs-heads-d >evelop-Add-FileUploaderWithResponseData-tp63051p63139.html&data=02%7C01%7C >%7Cbd5414b3ced9495c188908d4c8f0f59b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0 >%7C0%7C636354384624691027&sdata=BGn1g0wbTZr7ikn3uuhcIGDGPEmSVWTwIF%2BlaF6d >v8w%3D&reserved=0 >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
