Here is a very basic example of what I want the UI to thread. In my application I show a result set in a Tile. Once the user clicks on one of the entries I want to transition the result set view from the main section of the app over to the left part of the screen. Very easy and very smooth looking transition. Well, at the same time I need to change the data in the backing ArrayCollection sometimes adding another 100 or so rows. I wanted this to happen as the transition is going. Well, the transition now waits until the data changes, then moves. Or, I have to transition first, then change data. Both at the same time completely blows the smooth transition. In fact, the transition will not happen. The UI will sit until the data changes, then it just quickly pops over to the left part of the screen with no smooth movement. Yes, I could do an async call to the server, but I already have all the data I need.
Very simple treading would solve this and keep me from having to do any tricks or kludges. A simple dispatchEvent with a parameter async:Boolean=false to allow me to dispatch as async would make our lives much better. The Flash player guys may be adamant about this now, but with Flex starting to take off and more and more full apps (not just the simple one screen widget stuff), they are going to need to rethink that as just about any enterprise sized app like the one I'm building would greatly benefit from it. I realize this may be a Flash Player change at the core and may be a ton of work, but I feel it will be needed. Remember, their job is to be hard so ours is easier. Our jobs are to be hard so our users are easier. Dale --- In [email protected], "barry.beattie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > People have been begging for some kind of threading for a long time, > > but the Flash Player team seems pretty adamant that this won't happen > > any time soon. > > and, IMHO, fair enough too. The SWF is just the UI, it's not the whole > application**. There's async calls to the server and Java (and ow > CF)have threading as well. Just how much of the layers of an > application do people want the UI to do? > > And it's quite possible that it won't just be the CF/PHP/Java code > that does the heavy lifting either (well, maybe not in this case...) - > it could very well be the database doing hundreds of lines of SQL > munging to get data to run some charts (eg: it doesn't make sence to > pull raw data into the SWF - then do a ton of processing on a single > thread - just to run some charts). > > Onions - they have layers. Ogres - they have layers. Applications - > they have layers too. > > > ** OK, so there are some grey areas where applications are ALL UI and > very little else. Still.. >
