Re: [Asunit-users] MovieClip utility ?!

[Luke B. <lb...@gm...>]

------------------------------
This message was from erixtekila but was unable to be sent through the
list because of attached Images

I've posted the images to the web server and replaced them with links.

Thanks so much for taking to time to take these captures, I'll add
links to them in the built-in readme as well.

Luke Bayes
www.asunit.com
------------------------------


Hi Luke,

Thanx for this clear and clean explanation.
In fact, your comparison on MovieClip type vs Class is a daily basis
for .as developpers.
The need you felt to explain things in such a detail way, should come
from my bad question.
I apologize.

What I was (trying to) saying is just : what is the workflow when using
asunit framework ?
I anderstand now that the poor xul implementation of MM drive you to
deal with UI difficulties.

So my feeling is that a little documentation should clear things a
little.
When one will try to implement the framework, they'll get trouble.

I tell you what i've anderstood, see inline screenshots :
- Hide quoted text -

> Basically, what we're trying to expose in our "Create Class" command
> is the ability for people to:
>
> 1) Create Classes that are NOT MovieClips

http://www.asunit.com/docs/img/simpleclass.jpg


> 2) Create Classes that are MovieClips and exist in the Library

http://www.asunit.com/docs/img/extendsmovieclip-lib.jpg


> 3) Create Classes that are MovieClips and don't exist in the Library

http://www.asunit.com/docs/img/extendsmovieclip-nonlib.jpg


Am I right ?
In my experience of using asunit, that's work just fine.
> Unfortunately, our Template code is very simple and inelegant and we
> have a priority to try and keep it that way. So our auto-created
> TestCase does not actually instantiate MovieClips properly - hence the
> example to show folks how that might be done using a more efficient
> factory. (Found on TestCase)
I think that the TestCase example shouldn't mention to check "Add
Library=E2=80=A6".

To finish, i would like to thank you work, which is really valuable.
Actually, i find the serialisable property and the Object.registerClass
really wonderfull.
>
> We provide access to this "hack" using relatively elegant (methinks)
> solution by storing the result of the registration in a static member
> named, "serializable"... This registration can also apply to
> non-MovieClip classes that you would like to store in
> LocalSharedObjects, RemoteSharedObjects and LocalConnectionObjects...
In fact, it is really elegant=E2=80=A6
Anyone should implement its class with this, in case of future code
refactoring.

>
> I agree wholeheartedly that our User Interface should show some
> exclusivity on these selections, and would be glad to see your
> suggested improvements. It's a little difficult because Macromedia did
> not give us a complete "XUL" implementation, they just gave us a XUL
> "Dialog" - but in spite of that, I think that what you're asking for
> could be implemented.
Is there a comboBox in the XUL of MM ?
That way, you could make :
- "Create simple Class" as defalut value.
- "Create and subclass library MovieClip" as 2nd one
- "Subclass MovieClip Class  without library symbol (Advanced use
only)" as 3rd.

My 2cents.

Cheers.