How about ( and this maybe a complete noobish way :) ) using the
visible attribute .. You then also have to take into account 'layout'
probably ..
-- from LiveDocs ---
Preventing layout of hidden controls
By default, Flex lays out and reserves space for all components,
including hidden components, but it does not display the hidden
controls. You see blank spots where the hidden controls will appear
when you make them visible. In place of the hidden controls, you see
their container's background. However if the container is any of the
following components, you can prevent Flex from considering the child
component when it lays out the container's other children by setting
the child component's includeInLayout property of the component to false:
* Box, or any of its subclasses: HBox, VBox, DividedBox,
HDividedBox, VdividedBox, Grid, GridItem, GridRow, ControlBar, and
ApplicationControlBar,
* Form
* Tile and its subclass, Legend
* ToolBar
When a component's includeInLayout property is false, Flex does not
include it in the layout calculations for other components, but still
lays it out. In other words, Flex does not reserve space for the
component, but still draws it. As a result, the component can appear
underneath the components that follow it in the layout order. To
prevent Flex from drawing the component, you must also set its visible
property to false.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Labriola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> To add to what Tracy was saying..
>
> Let's say you have a component in the comps directory called MyComp.
> It could be in MXML or in Actionscript, it doesn't matter.
>
> First you would need to import that component definition by saying
> import comps.MyComp;
>
> Then, at anytime, for instance in response to a button click, you can
> say:
>
> var someVar:MyComp = new MyComp();
> someVar.property1 = 3;
> someVar.property2 = 7;
> this.addChild( someVar );
>
> or myViewStack.addChild( someVar );
>
> You could make a series of functions which create these components
> and set them, calling the appropriate function when needed. Or you
> could dig a little further and learn about factories... is this
> basically what you were trying to do or are we missing your point?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Spratt" <tspratt@> wrote:
> >
> > You understand that if you use navigation containers, like
> viewStack and
> > TabNavigator, that much of this is done for you automatically?
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, separate mxml files is a fine way to make re-useable
> components.
> > Their size is not significant. Make them generic so that you can
> set
> > properties and event listeners.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know if the <mx:Component> tag can be used anywhere other
> than
> > in an item renderer(state?), but you might check.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you can instantiate controls at will using container.addChild().
> >
> >
> >
> > There are also RSLs and modules.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mxml is just another way to write AS classes, use it if you like it.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are lots of options.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tracy
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of gary_mangum
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:30 PM
> > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [flexcoders] Defining a dynamic UI
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it possible to "pre-define" a set of MXML components but not
> create
> > them or add them to a Container in the application until a later
> time.
> > In other words, I want to define some components, complete with
> > properties, events, etc. that will not be part of my UI until I
> > dynamically add them as the application runs. I will decide whether
> > or not to add them based on runtime criteria.
> >
> > I know that I can use states to add and remove components. If I use
> > states, is there a way to define a component only once in MXML and
> > then add it in 3-4 different states? I do not wish to define my
> > component over and over inside of AddChild tags, and my components
> are
> > not really specialized enough to warrant their own MXML files since
> > there are many of them and the only real differences are their
> > properties, events, etc.
> >
> > I've also thought that I could manually define my components in AS
> and
> > keep them in memory until needed, but would rather define them in
> MXML
> > if possible. I would also like to create the components
> > "just-in'time" instead of creating them up front when they may never
> > be needed.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts on this topic!
> >
>
