Comments on: RobotLegs AS3 v0.2: ReversiblePants

By: shaun

shaun — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:06:18 +0000

Benoit, you should join the discussion group (no pressure though!): http://groups.google.com/group/robotlegs

By: shaun smith » Blog Archive » RobotLegs AS3 v0.1: A DI Driven MVCS Framework for Flash & Flex - Inspired by PureMVC - flash, flex, php - cape town, south africa

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:58:31 +0000

[...] Update: V0.2 has been released. [...]

By: shaun

shaun — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:50:40 +0000

Benoit, you should join the discussion group (no pressure though!): http://groups.google.com/group/robotlegs

By: shaun

shaun — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:11:23 +0000

yeh, and I don’t think that “bind” is the best word to use either (due to possible confusion with Flex Binding)..

By: shaun

shaun — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:11:00 +0000

yeh, and I don’t think that “bind” is the best word to use either (due to possible confusion with Flex Binding)..

By: Benoit Jadinon

Benoit Jadinon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:10:32 +0000

I see what you mean, while the first uses smartypants arguments order,
the second one looks better when ‘read’ like :
“do a bind on value when asked for the class”
but I think this is all just because of the arguments names (borrowed from smarty)
if you rename them to something like :
bindValue( classToBind:Class, bindedValue:Object)
it doesn’t seem that problematic anymore…
well, it wasn’t that much of a deal anyway

By: Benoit Jadinon

Benoit Jadinon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:10:00 +0000

By: shaun

shaun — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:47:37 +0000

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the feedback. I’m not entirely happy with the Injector abstraction though.. I think I might have got it backwards! For example (as it currently is):

bindValue( whenAskedFor:Class, useValue:Object, named:String = null )

Maybe it should be:

bindValue( useValue:Object, whenAskedFor:Class, named:String = null )

I would have liked to keep the DSL/fluent interface that SmartyPants uses, but then it would be a lot more work for anyone wanting to write their own adapters.

What do you think? Should the parameter order stay as it is or be switched around?

Cheers,

By: shaun

shaun — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:47:00 +0000

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the feedback. I’m not entirely happy with the Injector abstraction though.. I think I might have got it backwards! For example (as it currently is):

bindValue( whenAskedFor:Class, useValue:Object, named:String = null )

Maybe it should be:

bindValue( useValue:Object, whenAskedFor:Class, named:String = null )

I would have liked to keep the DSL/fluent interface that SmartyPants uses, but then it would be a lot more work for anyone wanting to write their own adapters.

What do you think? Should the parameter order stay as it is or be switched around?

Cheers,

By: Benoit Jadinon

Benoit Jadinon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:59:33 +0000

I like the new DI abstraction, it actually makes the whole thing much easier to use, it feels more structured. your framework is groing on me ! I like not having to cast anything anymore…
I’m trying to write some sort of a template that could be used as base for my next websites, with swfaddress and such…