Comments on: Say NO! to Fx class Prefixing in Gumbo http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html Misc. Flash Platform des-dev & geek enigmacopaedia by Joseph Balderson Fri, 18 May 2012 16:46:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2 by: David Zuckerman http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-17069 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:32:47 +0000 http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-17069 We're in the process of determining ways to give Fx components more visibility in code hinting and other places in the UI of Flex Builder. If users can't find them, they won't use them. And if they do find both, we want to avoid any confusion regarding which component to use We’re in the process of determining ways to give Fx components more visibility in code hinting and other places in the UI of Flex Builder. If users can’t find them, they won’t use them. And if they do find both, we want to avoid any confusion regarding which component to use

]]> by: Juan Sanchez http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15879 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:27:03 +0000 http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15879 One thing I could see issue with is in CSS Type selectors, since both components handle skinning differently. Using the Fx prefix gets rid of the issue when mixing both components. Just one observation. One thing I could see issue with is in CSS Type selectors, since both components handle skinning differently. Using the Fx prefix gets rid of the issue when mixing both components. Just one observation.

]]> by: Deepa Subramaniam http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15872 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:29:49 +0000 http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15872 Please check out my updated explanation: http://iamdeepa.com/blog/?p=34#comment-957 as it provides a lot more information behind the prefixing thought process that are not as obvious to people initially approaching the issue. There is a lot beyond just how Gumbo components will look in MXML. Please check out my updated explanation:

http://iamdeepa.com/blog/?p=34#comment-957

as it provides a lot more information behind the prefixing thought process that are not as obvious to people initially approaching the issue. There is a lot beyond just how Gumbo components will look in MXML.

]]> by: Rick Winscot http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15869 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:45:14 +0000 http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2008/10/say-no-to-fx-class-prefixing-in-gumbo.html#comment-15869 I understand and can sympathize with your arguments... have you considered the frameworks lack of backward compatibility? Not to mention the size of the framework if, in the same codebase, all versions of the framework must be supported? In the Flex 3.1 SDK source I'm already seeing quite a few switch statements against the components version number. I understand and can sympathize with your arguments… have you considered the frameworks lack of backward compatibility? Not to mention the size of the framework if, in the same codebase, all versions of the framework must be supported? In the Flex 3.1 SDK source I’m already seeing quite a few switch statements against the components version number.

]]>