CODE: XT

I’ve been using Codespaces for a few months now and have to say I really like it. Floyd Price started this Subversion hosting solution 3 years ago in his basement. Now based in Coventry (UK), his group of 6 continue to develop this Ruby on Rails project management software, driven largely by my personal complaints I’m sure.

What I like most is how separate and configurable projects and repositories are. I can create any number of “projects” in my space, attach multiple SVN repos to each, and even share repos between projects. It allows me the freedom to invite contributors to some projects and keep other projects all to myself. Each project has a ticket system, wiki, file storage, and can have a public portal for the community to read up on projects and even submit bugs. Now all I need is custom design and a sandwich maker!

Love the service, keep it up Floyd and co.

At 360|Flex this last month there were 5 different framework-centric presentations, from Adobe’s Cairngorm down to build-your-own-framework. Each framework presents its own virtues and vice’s, each developed to solve their originator’s focused set of organizational problems encountered in their architecture. I’m not an expert in any one of these frameworks and so won’t compare or contrast this list of projects to determine the “best” one. Even better, I have one more to throw on the pile: Flight Framework. Yet another framework, another methodology, another workflow for Flash and Flex application development … why? Why offer another option in the crowd of mulling libraries that vie for popularity?

Flight Framework is, of course, another MVC framework and is not too unfamiliar to Cairngorm or server-side MVC frameworks. In fact it could be compared to Cairngorm but with less “boiler-plate” and more utility. The MVC implementation Flight dictates has been compared to HMVC: Hierarchical-Model-View-Controller. Flight organizes modules of behavior and data into MVC sub-systems called domains. Each domain has a controller class, a business model and all the logic and independence necessary to become a stand-alone system. This just means easier organization of larger systems and built-in reuse of logic between applications. Flight’s domains are supported by a convenient backing of common solutions, such as commands, history, weak-referenced binding and system notifications. Beyond domains, Flight Framework presents application configurations, services, an application package structure and convenient domain access from the view. This is just a broad and abstract summary of Flight Framework; examples and documentation better prove a projects real value.

So why add one more to the lineup? Five different presentations last month demonstrate some dissatisfaction with available solutions. The frameworks were developed in response to needs that were not met. Flight answers my need. It will answer your needs. It’s more prescriptive, better structured and organized, and answers the question “where does this go?” in application development. It is small, but it’s not meant to be a scanty shawl thrown over the top of an application. It forces definition and strong architectures. It doesn’t care about coupling already-dependent classes, recreating solutions that already exist, or strictly (and complexly) adhering to design patterns for design patterns sake. Flight balances application design with development practicality. It favors use of auto-completion and compile-time error checking over dynamic (aka “manual”) API look-up and run-time errors, and without requiring extra “framework code”. It separates advanced techniques for use only in advanced need. And Flight Framework has been and continues to be developed by active application developers who keep in touch with the Flash and Flex development community.

But most importantly, Flight answers my need. I will be happy building Rich Internet Applications without any popularity to validate the use of the framework. However, Rob Taylor (co-architect/developer) and I are happy to contribute in any way to the development community we’ve received so much from, even if this contribution heightens the “framework” conundrum. I recommend taking a serious evaluation of Flight - I think it’s the solution you’re looking for. Happy searching!

note: Flight Framework will not be released publicly until documentation and examples are complete, both of which are in the works and will be completed soon. We hope you understand the invaluable nature of these resources that will temporarily delay code release.

I generally think of Blogs as a useful (and sometimes a useless) collection of thoughts, information, or even meaningless conversation. But one important distinction is that it is a collection, not was a post once. So I write this post in way of an apology for this not-a-blog excuse of a website, and to commemorate a 2-year (plus some) break of silence.

Thank you Jacob, for always linking to the website though it’s little more than a url. And thanks to Andy and all those who have ever prodded me to write more (more doesn’t seem the right word) on my blog. It might actually be a regular thing someday, if I learn not to wait for that next redesign to feel like I can write again.

Riddle~

Assigning ActionScript classes to MovieClip library assets has changed the way we develop user interfaces. Components add behavior directly to a display element, combining function with the design. The ability to extend the MovieClip class simplifies relationships and allows for powerful display objects that can be reused. But it can only be achieved through the linkage of a MovieClip in the library. TextFields and Buttons (Flash native Buttons, not to be confused with other component Buttons) are exempt, as well as a very important MovieClip: the root.

Answer: Read the rest of this entry »

Slice-9 has been a beautiful solution to resizing skins but sometimes you’re restricted to using a pre-8 FlashPlayer. Shortly before the beta of 8 I wrote a couple scripts in JSFL to solve the tedious task of manually slicing my designs into 9 pieces. They will take any MovieClip (including their child MovieClips) and slice it up into 9 unique library assets named and preped for resizing. This process has been long and monotonous for many designers and can now be as easy as the Slice9 introduced in FlashPlayer 8.
Read the rest of this entry »

If you haven’t guessed, I’m Tyler Wright. I started out in life hoping to be an artist and even went to school with a declared major of Illustration. Somehow I’ve become a full-time web developer programming the applications that get designed by someone else (currently the mediaRAIN designers). My niche: Flash ActionScript

I am scheduled to speak at the FlashForward Conference for the first time this September. I am co-presenting with the amazing developer and good friend, Rob Taylor. The title of the session is Browser Power for Flash. This FlashForward presentation is about drawing on the strengths of the browser to make the Flash experience a better one. We’ll show stuff like embedding JavaScript in Flash, Flash SEO (search engine optimization), dynamically embedding Flash in the web page, etc. Examples used will be navigation and bookmarking within a non-pagenated Flash site, disabling and re-tooling the Flash right-click menu, using custom fonts in your HTML and many others. More on this as the presentation develops.

You’ll find the name at the bottom of the list of speakers: Tyler Wright (I’m a little behind the rest of the world, alphabetically). I hope to meet you at the conference for those of you planning to attend!

Riddle~

Is it important to keep track of depths in ActionScript for all of my display assets? It’s something extra to worry about, but there’s always the danger of killing something by overwriting the depth. It’s also important to have control on what graphics go in front of others. The “right way” is to have those depths explicitly defined along with each element so it’s clear who has what depth and it keeps the children from fighting. But then that doesn’t work for graphics placed on the stage at design time.

Answer: Read the rest of this entry »

The challenge:

The Flash Player has evolved through the ages to provide the most needed functionality. Through each version there have always remained a few common goals. What I have found is that:

Flash is small — from the player itself to the swf file format to the assets it is optimized to load, focus has been placed on small file sizes (this of course is not as apparent in many websites that are heavy in multimedia)

Flash supports standards — the player supports many web and multimedia formats standard in the industry, such as jpg, mp3 and xml

Flash is interactive — the players greatest strength is the dynamic behavior through ActionScript to allow user interactivity

MIDI, a music standard format that most computers support today, fits all of these categories (like a glove). Read the rest of this entry »

Often, in certain environments, a system of codes will be established to help improve communication. They confine advanced concepts into a more concise representation. Code: 51 is commonly used at mediaRAIN to mean something like, “making things not lame” (direct translation is inappropriate for public postings). “Code 51!” is heard when a developer has just qualified his/her code for the Daily WTF. Codes often represent common problems. As a Flash developer I have found the need for a new code. Read the rest of this entry »