More progress.

git-svn-id: svn+ssh://src.earth.threerings.net/narya/trunk@3849 542714f4-19e9-0310-aa3c-eee0fc999fb1
2006-02-14 04:07:02 +00:00
parent 8366c150f4
commit 4d7fb64b8c
16 changed files with 582 additions and 38 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+This document contains a couple of notes about some design decisions
+and some notes about flash that you may find useful.
+
+
+Design decisions
+----------------
+- I have kept accessors named like their Java counterparts, rather
+  than embracing flash's property setter/getter methods (which are really
+  cool), but I am starting to lean the other way and may rewrite some stuff.
+
+- I am embracing flash's event distribution model because it saved me a bunch
+  of work.
+
+
+
+Notes
+-----
+- In actionscript, 'package' is simply a block command to sweep whatever is
+  defined inside the block so that it's in that package. This means
+  that in addition to classes being in a package, freestanding functions
+  and I believe variables and constants can be in a package.
+
+  We are not putting freestanding functions anywhere. Make a util class with
+  static methods.
+
+- ActionScript does not have inner classes. Only one public class may be
+  defined in a file, and the filename must match the public class.
+  However, protected classes cannot be defined within the package block!
+  So it seems like the model is:
+
+  package com.foo {
+      public class FooBar {
+          // stuff
+      }
+  } // end: package foo
+
+  class HelperClass {
+      // helper stuff
+  }
+
+
+  To me, this makes it seem as if the helper class is now globally scoped,
+  which of course is the exact opposite of what is desired. This may
+  not be the case, I haven't played with it much yet.
+
+- Similarly, I'm unclear about sandboxes. If a user-created .swf is playing
+  inside ours, I don't know if it can interact with our classes, and if so,
+  what happens if it proceeds to define a class like
+  com.threerings.presents.client.Client?
+
+- constructors do not defaultly call super()- be sure to do it explicitely.
+  Maybe we should get in the habit of doing it in Java for consistency and
+  explicitness.