It's possible within a Flex application, to declare elements, for example a HTTPService elements, both in XML and also in code.
That is, either:
...
or in code:
var hs : HTTPService = ...
My question is when should I prefer which alternative? What are the advantages of having stuff in XML vs. plain old vars in code?
MXML is great for doing declarative layouts, much easier to follow than doing everything programmatically in ActionScript. If you are using something like a ServiceLocator to define HTTPService, RemoteObject, etc in your app then declaring them via MXML is also quick and easy. Basically if you want to add anything to an object's displayList quickly and easily, MXML is a great way.
Elements are more concise and compact than AS3 code, tho of course ultimately it all becomes the same thing. You can, for example in 'one line' of mxml declare an HTTPService and set several of its properties. In script you'd need to do this in many lines of init code. If you have a lot of global variables this can start to become unruly.
Related
I have been using Flex / Flash Builder for a number of years. The latest release of Flash Builder (4.7) seems to come with quite a few problems, the biggest of those being:
Does not detect component IDs in MXML. For example, you cannot Find Usages of the ID of a component. Keeping the cursor on the ID of a component does not even mark occurrences of the ID. Instead, it marks occurrences of the actual id words in the MXML.
Extremely slow.
I am seriously evaluating moving over to IntelliJ IDEA 12, especially after reading many experienced Flex devs raving about it and recommending it.
I tried it. It took me a while to get to terms with the new terminologies of the IDE (made easy by this doc and very helpful support personnel at JetBrains).
I was able to setup my (large) projects in IDEA with Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK and got it to compile fine. But I noticed many "errors" highlighted in my AS files which are all actually false alarms.
The ActionScript editor doesn't seem to recognise the objects defined in MXML. Apparently, this is a known bug in IDEA (tracked here). And this bug has existed for more than 2 years!
Quoting the JetBrains support personnel:
I must admit that highlighting of ActionScript files which do not contain classes, but instead included in mxml as <fx:Script source="some_file.as"/> is probably the only weak part of IntelliJ IDEA code highlighting. False error highlighting will go away if you embed AS code inside CDATA of <fx:Script/> instead of referencing as external *.as file. Though I understand that this is not always desired.
I'm afraid the fix won't go into 12 release because the release is very soon and the fix is too risky. Priority of the issue depends on votes and user feedback. So far we have only 2 votes (http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-52598) and as the fix is pretty complex we still haven't implemented it thinking that this is a rare use case. I hope to fix it in one of 12.x update releases.
My project is a huge one, with huge MXML files and even more huge AS code for each MXML. So, for organisation purposes, I need to logically split them into smaller files. So, merging the AS code with the MXML is not practical. The false error highlighting just drastically reduces the readability of the code. Also, it does not allow Control / Command-clicking component IDs in AS code to quickly navigate to the definition of the component in MXML (which, incidentally, is now broken in FB 4.7 as well, but worked well in FB 4.6).
This bug in IDEA is unfortunately a deal-breaker for me. But I am wondering how other Flex devs are able to overcome / work around this seemingly critical bug.
It seems unbelievable to me that just 2 people have been affected by this bug, especially with so many Flex devs recommending IDEA. Maybe I am doing something wrong?
All you Flex developers, I would appreciate your thoughts.
UPDATE
This is in response to RIAStar's excellent and detailed answer. But it doesn't quite help me completely. Let me explain why and how I use <fx:Script source>. I am using Flex 4.x, with almost only Spark components.
Suppose a brand new Flex project. The main application is an MXML file.
In this MXML file, suppose I have a signup form.
On editing the form (in each field), suppose I have to run validations and enable the Submit button only if the form is completely valid. This would mean I need to assign change event handlers to the form items. The event handlers is AS code.
Suppose there is a username field which needs an on-type uniqueness check, by calling the server asynchronously. The server communication code is also AS code.
And then of course, there is the Submit button handler, which is also AS code.
I usually put all the AS code in separate .as files and include it in the MXML using <fx:Script source>. This AS code is usually quite heavy, with a lot of functional and behavioural logic. Many times, based on user action, even the components in the MXML and layout of the elements is modified through this AS code.
If I understand you guys right, none of this event handler code should be in these MXML script files. So, where should it be? How do you guys do it? I am not sure how the Spark Skinning architecture has anything to do with this.
Since I can't think of a gentle way of putting this, I'll just be blunt: I'm afraid the reason only two people think this is a critical bug, is that most seasoned Flex developers will agree that using <fx:Script source="some_file.as"/> is bad practice.
You effectively create two files that represent one class. From a readablity POV, which you seem concerned about, that's not a good move. One of these files (the .as file) is just a bunch of functions that cannot exist in their own right: they are tightly coupled to another file/class, but just looking at the .as file there is no way of knowing which class it is coupled to. Of course you can use some kind of naming convention to work around this, but in the end ActionScript/Flex is supposed te be used as a statically typed language, not a scripting language relying on mixins and naming conventions (don't get me wrong: I'm not saying scripting languages are bad practice; it's just not how ActionScript was conceived).
So what are your alternatives?
I suppose the main reason behind this construct is that you wish to separate MXML from ActionScript code, or in more abstract terms: separate the view from the logic. Fortunately this can be achieved in a few other, cleaner ways. Which solutions are available to you depends whether we're talking Flex 3 (or earlier) or Flex 4.
I realise that you may not have time to refactor your code to one of the proposed solutions, but I didn't want to leave you with just a "that's not good practice" answer.
Flex 3 (mx)
Code behind: A lot of developers used the so-called "code behind" pattern to separate their logic from their view. You can find plenty of information on the topic by Googling "flex code behind". I don't need to repeat all that in here. I'm not much of a fan of the concept because it relies heavily on inheritance and the two resulting classes are still pretty tightly coupled, but at least we're talking two classes. If you design your architecture well, you may even be able to reuse some of your base classes.
Compose model en controller: I used to create a separate "presentation model" class and a "controller" class for each MXML view and then use it something like this:
<!--MyView.mxml-->
<mx:VBox>
<m:MyModel id="model"/>
<c:MyController model="{model}" view="{this}"/>
...
</mx:VBox>
MVC purists won't like this, but it worked pretty well for me in thencontext of Flex applications.
Later when Direct Injection supporting frameworks (like Parsley) made their appearance, I could use injection to wire all those classes instead of hard-wiring them like in this example.
MVC frameworks: My knowledge of this topic is sparse (because in my opinion Flex is a very decent MVC framework that requires no third-party additions, but that's another disussion), but in short: they can help you separate logic from view in a clean way.
Flex 4 (Spark)
With Flex 4, the Spark skinning architecture was introduced, which allows for very nicely separated view and logic. You create a so-called 'host component' class in plain ActionScript, which contains all of the behavioural code, and a 'skin' class in MXML which defines the visual representation of the component. This makes designing reusable components very easy.
As per your request, here's a simplified example of how you might use Spark skinning to create your signup form.
Let's start with the skin class since it's easy to understand. It's just a form with some input fields. The HostComponent metadata tells the skin it's supposed to work together with the SignUp host component.
<!--SignUpSkin.mxml: the visual representation-->
<s:Skin xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009"
xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark">
<fx:Metadata>
[HostComponent("net.riastar.view.SignUp")]
</fx:Metadata>
<s:Form>
<s:FormHeading label="Sign up"/>
<s:FormItem label="User name">
<s:TextInput id="userInput"/>
</s:FormItem>
<s:FormItem label="Password">
<s:TextInput id="passwordInput" displayAsPassword="true"/>
</s:FormItem>
<s:Button id="submitButton" label="Submit"
enabled="{hostComponent.canSave}"/>
</s:Form>
</s:Skin>
And now the host component in pure ActionScript. It has to extend SkinnableComponent to be able to use our skin (there's also SkinnableContainerwhich I've just recently explained in this question: Flex mxml custom component - how to add uicomponents?, but we won't be needing that here).
public class SignUp extends SkinnableComponent {
[SkinPart(required="true")]
public var userInput:SkinnableTextBase;
[SkinPart(required="true")]
public var passwordInput:SkinnableTextBase;
[SkinPart(required="true")]
public var submitButton:IEventDispatcher;
[Bindable]
public var canSave:Boolean;
override protected function partAdded(partName:String, instance:Object):void {
super.partAdded(partName, instance);
switch (instance) {
case userInput:
userInput.addEventListener(TextOperationEvent.CHANGE,
handleUserInputChange);
break;
case passwordInput:
passwordInput.addEventListener(TextOperationEvent.CHANGE,
handlePasswordInputChange);
break;
case submitButton:
submitButton.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK,
handleSubmitButtonClick);
}
}
private function handleUserInputChange(event:TextOperationEvent):void {
validateUsername(userInput.text);
}
...
}
What's important here?
The variables marked as SkinPart will automatically be assigned the components with the same id that exist in the Skin you just created. For instance <s:TextInput id="userInput"/> will be injected into public var userInput:SkinnableTextBase;. Note that the type is different: SkinnableTextBase is the base class of TextInput; this allows us to create another skin with e.g. a TextArea instead of a TextInput and it'll work without touching the host component.
partAdded() is called whenever a SkinPart is added to the display list, so that's where we hook up our event listeners. In this example we're validating the username whenever its value changes.
When the validation is done, you can simply set the canSave property to true or false. The binding in the skin on this property will automatically update the Button's enabled property.
And to use both of these classes together:
<v:SignUp skinClass="net.riastar.skin.SignUpSkin"/>
I actually have become quite fond of using RobotLegs.
In my MXML views I try to keep all logic outside of the MXML and simply dispatch events out to the mediator. From there I can put code in the mediator to the heavier AS needed.
Just out of curiosity, I am making an effort to optimize every part of our flex app (which is a small part of our app in general). Currently, I am working on optimizing all of the buttons/skins. I have linked a few of the buttons that I use, and some sample code I am using to generate them.
Please advise on how to make this more efficient, usable, and just better overall. Thanks!
As you can see, our buttons can be pretty different, but have a similar look and feel. Currently, I am creating 'stateful skins,' by setting up something like this:
skin: ClassReference('com.mysite.assets.skins.NavigationButtonSkin');
Then, NavigationButtonSkin looks something like this:
public class NavigationButtonSkin extends UIComponent {
// imports, constructor, etc
protected override function updateDisplayList(unscaledWidth:Number, unscaledHeight:Number):void {
// initialize fillColors, fillAlphas, roundedCorners, etc
switch( name ){
case 'upSkin':
fillColors = [getStyle('backgroundColor'),getStyle('backgroundColor2')];
break;
// do the same for overSkin, downSkin, disabledSkin, etc
}
// use this.graphics to draw background
// use this.graphics to draw border on top of background
}
}
I commented out some of the straight forward parts, but let me know if this is a bad/inefficient way of doing this - and how to improve.
Thanks!
In terms of performances, it would be better that your skin inherits from ProgrammaticSkin instead of UIComponent.
ProgrammticSkin itself inherits from Shape and provides utility methods for skinning such as verticalGradientMatrix, drawRoundRect, ...
That's all I can say looking at your code.
Good point is you use programmatic skin instead of bitmap/swf based skins.
Okay, I'm not getting where you're getting at with this. You just want to know if you're doing it right? I'm assuming that your skin: ClassReference('com.mysite.assets.skins.NavigationButtonSkin'); is added to the css of a Button, which is good, however I don't see why you're doing it all in Actionscript. Seems inefficient and essentially you're losing all the ability of mxml layouts and support for Catalyst (if you'd ever need it in the future).
Try creating a skin in Flash Builder, it'll create an MXML with the default button skin where you can just edit it as you please. It's also A LOT easier to do state based design using mxml over actionscript. You should modify from there on and have a separate skin for each button types.
EDIT: oh crap, didn't see this was Flex 3... Get with the program ;) Just listen to what Florian said.
I was wondering what happens to the code contained in an <mx:Script> tag. If I define a function tehre, it just becomes a member function of the generated class. But I noticed that it seems OK for the compiler if I just write some (static) method calls there (specifically, I call Font.registerFont()). It works fine, but I feel kind of guilty for doing this, because I have no idea what's really happening and when the code gets executed.
MXML is formally an ActionScript generation language. So, the Flex compiler will translate all MXML into ActionScript.
If you wan to see what happens; add the 'keep-generated-actionscript' argument to the compiler and then you can look at the generated ActionSCript code.
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/compilers_14.html#157203
Beyond that; I don't really understand your question. Why would static methods make you feel guilty?
Following the advice of www.Flextras.com's answer, I kept the generated Actionscript classes and had a look. The code inside <mx:Script> tags is simply put in the class body as-is. Knowing that, I could dig into the Flex livedocs and came across the following paragraph in the section about class definitions:
ActionScript 3.0 allows you to include not only definitions in a class body, but also statements. Statements that are inside a class body, but outside a method definition, are executed exactly once--when the class definition is first encountered and the associated class object is created.
So, putting statements inside a <Script> tag in an MXML file is equivalent to putting code in a static block in a Java class definition.
Solution:
if you have the same problem, addElement() instead of addChild() is what did it
I'm trying to move away from mxml to actionsctipt. I have a <s:Rect> that I've created and set its properties, but having trouble adding it.
var aRect:Rect = new Rect();
//set properties like aRect.x, aRect.y, aRect.width, aRect.height
//tried adding it various ways
addChild(aRect);
Application.addChild(aRect);
Application.application.addChild(aRect);
stage.addChild(aRect);
But I keep getting the error
1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type spark.primitives:Rect to an unrelated type flash.display:DisplayObject
Originally in the mxml, it was right inside <s:Application> not nested inside anything
<s:Application>
<s:Rect id="aRect" x="10" y="10" width="15%" height="15%">
//then fill code here, removed for readability
</s:Rect>
</s:Application>
What's the deal, I thought actionscript would be nicer than mxml.
tried changing addChild(aRect); to addElement(aRect); and that worked beautifully.
It's because Flex 4 significantly changed the way the display hierarchy works in MXML-based applications. This is a bit confusing since addChild() no longer works as simply as you'd want it to - you have to add elements to a dataprovider, and then the logic of displaying those elements (which ones to add where, how to skin them, etc) is handled elsewhere. It's kind of a useful change, though, because it forces you separate your concerns in a very concrete way. Once you have your elements all added to your dataProvider you can swap out Layout objects at will (even at runtime) to change the way your application looks.
EDIT: Technically it's not the displayList itself that they've changed. It's the fact that the basic unit used by Flex is now the "Group" - even s:Application extends group. You add your content to a a Group (or to the top level Application) and then you assign the group a layout to tell it how to display the items you've added.
Yes, you need a DisplayObject. I'm not familiar with spark.primitives.Rect, but perhaps you could just create a new Sprite and call methods on its Graphics object to draw the rectangle?
According to the live docs, the addChild method of the Application class does require it to be a displayObject.
Annoyingly we will often struggle to add flash assets ( swf swc ) (display objects) using addElement.
I'm working on a way to do this right now :( more hoops and jumping
Also my swc is not viewable in the package explorer (why not ?)
I have 2 components for example (editor.mxml using mx:windows), when I click an edit button, I want to get the current value from the other component's datafield? (datagrid.mxml using mx:window)
I do know how to access the main MXML's datagrid by parentDocument or Application.application method, but stumped block if I want to access other way as mentioned above. Keep the code as simple as possible.
You could either do dependency injection, that is, give component A a reference to component B so that they can communicate directly (example of tighter coupling,) or have both components communicate through a common mediator using events (example of more loose coupling.)
Both of those options would be implemented wherever it is that you're creating those components (A and B in this example) and adding them to the display list.
This might be more complicated than it deserves, and it smacks of Pattern-Fever, but you could use a mediator class that listens for the CLICK event from the button and knows enough about the other component to query its property. It could even transmit that data using a custom event, which the button listens for.
While this involves three classes instead of two, it often turns out to be easier to have two components that focus on looking good and one that worries about coordination.
Cheers
Try this:
FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication
This points Your root. From the root You can grab every element You want.
You can also add an id to the custom component like this,
<custom:Editor id="myCustomComponent">
</Editor:AddressForm>
and
access your datagrid's value like this,
var data:ArrayCollection = myCustomComponent.DatagridID.dataProvider;