I have a class which extends the Sprite object in as3. I need to be able to override the transform.matrix setter in this class but haven't been successful in doing so.
I've tried many things, along with creating my own separate class which extends the Transform class and then overrides its set matrix function, and set my transform = new CustomTransform(). Sadly this didn't work.
In code this is what i tried:
public class MyClass extends Sprite
{
public function MyClass()
{
super(); transform = new MyTransform(this);
}
}
class MyTransform extends Transform
{
public function MyTransform(dp:DisplayObject)
{
super();
}
override public function set matrix(value:Matrix)
{
super.matrix = value;
customcode();
}
}
All help is greatly appreciated!
This seems to work:
public class MyClass extends Sprite
{
public function MyClass()
{
super();
transform = new MyTransform(this,super.transform);
// i'm drawing a rect just to see the results of scaling
graphics.beginFill(0xff0000);
graphics.drawRect(0,0,100,100);
graphics.endFill();
}
override public function get transform():Transform {
var tmp:Transform;
if(super.transform is MyTransform) {
tmp = super.transform;
} else {
tmp = new MyTransform(this,super.transform);
}
return tmp;
}
override public function set transform(value:Transform):void {
var tmp:Transform;
if(value is MyTransform) {
tmp = value;
} else {
tmp = new MyTransform(this,value);
}
super.transform = tmp;
}
}
public class MyTransform extends Transform
{
public function MyTransform(dp:DisplayObject,transf:Transform = null)
{
super(dp);
if(transf) {
for(var prop:String in transf) {
this[prop] = transf[prop];
}
}
}
override public function set matrix(value:Matrix):void
{
super.matrix = value;
// customcode();
}
}
Use:
var sp:MyClass = new MyClass();
var mat:Matrix = sp.transform.matrix;
mat.scale(3,3);
trace(sp.transform);
sp.transform.matrix = mat;
addChild(sp);
The problem is that, even if you create and assign your tranform to be of type MyTransform, the getter returns a regular Transform object. There's something weird about how transform objects work in Flash (this is also true for SoundTransform, for instance). There's some kind of cache mechanism implemented in a rather lame way that forces you to reassign the instance if you want to commit your changes.
I mean this pattern:
var t:Transform = mc.transform;
// do something with t
mc.transform = t;
So I think this is related to why your code doesn't work as expected.
To get around this, I'm checking both in the setter and the getter if the trasnform object passed is of type MyTransform. If it is, I use it as is. If it's not, I create a MyTransform object and copy all of the properties from the original Transform. It'd be nice if the Transform class had a clone method, but it doesn't, so I implemented this simple copy mechanism. Not sure if this doesn't mess up with some internal state in Transform (could be the case). I haven't tested it apart from applying a scale, once. You might want to do it, as there could be other side effects I'm not considering. Also, this is probably not the most performant. But I can't think of another way to have your matrix setter called.
Edit
Using a static/global dispatcher is not a good idea except you really need it to be global. Implementing IEventDispatcher, since you can't directly extend EventDispatcher, is what you want.
The code needed for that is a bit verbose, but it's a no-brainer anyway. All you need is having an internal instance of event dispatcher and implement the methods of the interface. In said methods, you forward the parameteres to the actual dispatcher.
public class MyTransform extends Transform implements IEventDispatcher
{
private var _dispatcher:EventDispatcher;
public function MyTransform(dp:DisplayObject,transf:Transform = null)
{
super(dp);
_dispatcher = new EventDispatcher(this);
if(transf) {
for(var prop:String in transf) {
this[prop] = transf[prop];
}
}
}
override public function set matrix(value:Matrix):void
{
super.matrix = value;
// customcode();
}
public function dispatchEvent(event:Event):Boolean {
return _dispatcher.dispatchEvent(event);
}
public function addEventListener(type:String,listener:Function,useCapture:Boolean = false, priority:int = 0, useWeakReference:Boolean = false):void {
_dispatcher.addEventListener(type,listener,useCapture,priority,useWeakReference);
}
public function removeEventListener(type:String,listener:Function,useCapture:Boolean = false):void {
_dispatcher.removeEventListener(type,listener,useCapture);
}
public function hasEventListener(type:String):Boolean {
return _dispatcher.hasEventListener(type);
}
public function willTrigger(type:String):Boolean {
return _dispatcher.willTrigger(type);
}
}
Related
In PHP it's trivial to override properties of a class in a subclass. For instance:
class Generic_Enemy {
protected $hp = 100;
protected $str = 5;
//...
}
class Boss_Enemy extends Generic Enemy {
protected $hp = 1000;
protected $str = 25;
}
Which is extremely convenient because at-a-glance you can see in what ways the subclass differs from the parent class.
In AS3 the only way I've found is through getters, which really isn't elegant at all:
public class GenericEnemy {
private var _hp:uint = 100;
private var _str:uint = 25;
public function get hp():uint {
return _hp;
}
public function get str():uint {
return _str;
}
}
public class BossEnemy extends GenericEnemy {
override public function get hp():uint {
return 1000;
}
override public function get str():uint {
return 25;
}
}
Is there a nicer way of doing this that aligns with the PHP approach?
Specifically: let's say I'm writing an API that will let a developer easily spin off his own Enemies. I would rather document that you just have to override hp and str properties rather than explain that they have to create a new getter for each property they wish to override. It's a matter of trying to create the cleanest API and the easiest to document and maintain.
Sometimes ya just have to write the SO question in order to see the (obvious) answer:
public class GenericEnemy {
protected var _hp:uint = 100;
protected var _str:uint = 25;
public function GenericEnemy(){
//...
}
}
public class BossEnemy extends GenericEnemy {
public function BossEnemy(){
_hp = 1000;
_str = 50;
super();
}
}
The question is a bit silly. I am trying to implement a skill updating system. So to explain.
There is a class
class AppInfo
{
public static var power:int = 10;
public static var speed:int = 20;
}
and class SmartButton which should take a reference to one of the static variables e.g. power in a constructor and increment it on the given value.
e.g.
class SmartButton
{
public function onClick(skillReference:int = <AppInfo.power>, incrementVAlue:int = 10)
{
skillReference += incrementVAlue
}
}
I want this code to update the value of the power in AppInfo class. But this doesn't happen... I assume because the skill was passed as value not as reference...
Can you suggest a way of solving the task?
Thanks
Your assumption is correct, ints are passed by value rather than reference. One direct approach would be to encapsulate power into a reference type (a class) rather than a value type:
class Skill {
public var value:int;
public function Skill(val:int) {
this.value = val;
}
}
class AppInfo
{
public static var power:Skill = new Skill(10);
public static var speed:Skill = new Skill(20);
}
Then passing power should pass it as a reference to the instance. Though you would have to change your implemenation a bit to use skillReference.value instead.
Aside from that, I think there are a couple of ways to abstract what you want out. One way would be use an interface and leverage some dependency injection.
interface ISkills
{
function get power():int;
function set power(val:int):void;
}
class AppInfo implements ISkills
{
private static _power:int = 0;
public function get power():int { return _power; }
public function set power(val:int):void { _power = val; }
}
class SmartButton
{
public function onClick(skills:int = ISkills, skill:String = "power", incrementVAlue:int = 10)
{
skills[skill] += incrementVAlue
}
}
The idea here that you want to decouple your usage from your implementation. In this case SmartButton doesn't need to know how Skills work just how to operate on them. It loses its reference to the static class AppInfo in favor of an injectable instance. There are some advantages to this approach, it makes it easier to test and easier to swap implementations later if you decide that a static class isn't the best implementation idea without having to update a bunch of classes/code. Also, rather than injecting ISkills into the method, you could inject it into the constructor of SmartButton, and keep a private reference to the skill container.
Another approach would be to use a functional approach.
class SmartButton
{
public var defaultWorker:Function = function(val:int):void {
AppInfo.power += val;
}
public function onClick(worker:Function = undefined, incrementValue:int = 10):void
{
if(worker == undefined) worker = defaultWorker;
worker.call(this, incrementValue);
}
}
Again, in this case, rather than tightly coupling your implementation to use the AppInfo class directly, you inject a "worker" for it do the work for you (if the worker is undefined then use the default worker. You can then swap out which property gets changed by changing the closure that gets passed in. For instance if you wanted to change speed instead then you would call:
var smartButton:SmartButton;
smartButton.onClick(function(val:int):void { AppInfo.speed += val});
Not quite as succinct as it could be, but it gets the job done.
The obligatory "elegantly sophisticated" approach using the command pattern:
Interface Command {
function execute():void;
}
Class UpdatePower implements Command {
private var appInfo:AppInfo;
private var delta:int;
public function UpdatePower(appInfo:AppInfo, delta:int) {
this.appInfo = appInfo;
this.delta = delta;
}
public function execute():void {
appInfo.delta += delta;
}
}
Class SmartButton {
var command:Command;
public function SmartButton(command:Command) {
this.command = command;
}
public function onClick(event:Event):void {
command.execute();
}
}
I would probably implement this in a slightly different way.
Maybe something like;
class Properties {
private var _properties:Dictionary = new Dictionary();
public function setValue(key:String, value:int) {
_properties[key] = value;
}
public function getValue(key:String):int {
if( !_properties[key] ) return 0;
else return _properties[key];
}
public function modifyValue(key:String, value:int) {
setValue(key, getValue(key) + value);
}
}
class SmartButton
{
public function onClick(target:Properties, key:String, incrementValue:int = 10) {
target.modifyValue(key, incrementValue);
}
}
Or something along those lines.
I need to get all the instances in my stage according to an especific class name. I'm doing this:
var class_ref:Class = getDefinitionByName('fran.MyOwnClass') as Class;
var element;
for (var i:uint = 0; i < this.parent.numChildren; i++)
{
element = this.parent.getChildAt(i);
if (element is class_ref)
{
trace('Found element of class fran.MyOwnClass');
}
}
But I want a better way (more efficiently, without checking all the MCs). Is it possible?
If you can start tracking instances from the very beginning of you application life, I'd recommend simply add event listener:
// in document class constructor, before doing anything else
stage.addEventListener(Event.ADDED, stage_addedHandler);
stage.addEventListener(Event.REMOVED, stage_removedHandler);
private function stage_addedHandler(event:Event):void
{
var obj:DisplayObject = event.target as DisplayObject;
// do something, e.g. if (obj is MyClass) objCounter++;
}
...
If you can't track from the beginning, you can't avoid loops.. Just make them more optimized:
var n:int = container.numChildren;
while (n-- > 0)
{
...
}
Overriding everywhere addChild() and others — that's simply impossible solution in real projects.
You could keep a list of all the MC's of a certain type by extending the container class and overriding its addChild(), addChildAt(), removeChild() and removeChildAt() functions.
public class MySprite extends Sprite {
public var ownClasses:Vector.<MyOwnClass> = new Vector.<MyOwnClass>();
override public function addChild(child:DisplayObject):DisplayObject {
addOwnClass(child as MyOwnClass);
return super.addChild(child);
}
override public function addChildAt(child:DisplayObject, index:int):DisplayObject {
addOwnClass(child as MyOwnClass);
return super.addChildAt(child, index);
}
private function addOwnClass(child:MyOwnClass):void {
if (child) ownClasses.push(child);
}
override public function removeChild(child:DisplayObject):DisplayObject {
removeOwnClass(child as MyOwnClass);
return super.removeChild(child);
}
override public function removeChildAt(index:int):DisplayObject {
removeOwnClass(getChildAt(index) as MyOwnClass);
return super.removeChildAt(index);
}
private function removeOwnClass(child:MyOwnClass):void {
if (child) {
var i:int = ownClasses.indexOf(child);
if (i != -1) ownClasses.splice(i, 1);
}
}
}
Using this class, every time a child is added, you check whether it's a MyOwnClass and if it is you add it to the ownClasses list. Similar for removing children.
Now you can simply access the list when you need it without looping over the MC's.
public class Main extends MySprite
{
public function Main()
{
addChild(new Sprite());
addChild(new MyOwnClass());
trace(ownClasses);
}
}
This will output [object MyOwnClass]
I am a little confused by this concept.
If I override a public function in a base class, I would have thought that this override function is called and the original is ignored? though this doesn't seem to be the case...
public class AbstractScreen extends Sprite
{
public function AbstractScreen()
{
}
public function updateLanguage():void
{
trace("WARNING: need to override public function updateLanguage()");
}
}
public class Start extends AbstractScreen
{
override public function updateLanguage():void
{
title.text = _model.language.start
title.setTextFormat(titleFormat);
}
}
public class ViewManager extends Sprite
{
private var _model:Model;
private var _screens:Array;
public function ViewManager(model:Model)
{
_model = model;
_model.addEventListener(AppEvent.INIT_VIEW, initViews);
_model.addEventListener(AppEvent.UPDATE_VIEW, updateView);
_model.addEventListener(AppEvent.CHANGED_LANGUAGE, changeLanguage);
}
private function initViews(e:AppEvent):void
{
trace("View Manager: initViews");
_screens = new Array(new Start(_model), new TakePhoto(_model));
dispatchEvent(new ViewEvent(ViewEvent.VIEW_READY));
}
private function changeLanguage(e:AppEvent):void
{
for each (var screen:AbstractScreen in _screens)
{
screen.updateLanguage();
}
}
}
If my model dispatches a CHANGED_LANGUAGE event, the text in the views gets updated, But I also get a trace of "WARNING: need to override public function updateLanguage()" What could I be doing wrong?
You are right, this should not call the base class function. Are you sure there is no call to
super.initLanguage()
within your override?
Most IDE's add this call in the function body automatically, if they create an override for you.
EDIT
From your edit I see your are iterating over two objects of the types Start and TakePhoto. I assume TakePhoto is also derived from AbstractScreen and the trace may be comming from this one.
Also I suggest to use the abstract base class in your iteration.
for each (var screen:AbstractScreen in _screens)
{
screen.updateLanguage();
}
If an AS3 method returns a reference to a complex type, is there any way to make that 'readonly', like how you can have const member functions in C++? An architecture I want to use calls for a class building itself from a passed template object... and really the template object should not be modifiable. I'm currently forced to add call-back enumerators and/or lots of extra accessor methods.
Flex has an ObjectUtil.clone() method that will make a deep copy. The copy will still by modifiable, but since it's a copy, the changes won't propagate back to the original.
The method is no complicated so if you're not using Flex, just add this to a util class:
public static function copy(value:Object):Object
{
var buffer:ByteArray = new ByteArray();
buffer.writeObject(value);
buffer.position = 0;
var result:Object = buffer.readObject();
return result;
}
There is no way to do that in AS3, there is Sam's way of doing it, but it still requires copying that object before you return it, depending on the complexity of that object, it can impact the performance.
Immutable interfaces are a near-equivillant to const-correctness. Here's an example:
interface CPoint {
function get x():Number;
function get y():Number;
}
class Point implements CPoint {
private var _x:Number;
private var _y:Number;
public function get x():Number { return _x; }
public function get y():Number { return _y; }
public function set x(val:Number) { _x = val; }
public function set y(val:Number) { _y = val; }
public function normalize():void {
var length:Number = Math.sqrt(_x*_x + _y*_y);
_x /= length;
_y /= length;
}
public function Point(x:Number, y:Number) {
_x = x; _y = y;
}
}
If you return a Point as a CPoint reference, then its fields cannot be altered. You can do an explicit cast to a Point from a CPoint to force access, but you can do the same thing with const casting in C++.
Unfortunately, AS3 doesn't support covariance like it should, so things get unnecessarily difficult for const sub-objects. For example, if you had a Line class that was made up of two points, you might want to say line.start.x = 47; if you have full access to the line, but allow reading of line.start.x through an immutable interface. You could do this if there was covariance, but instead you'll need to add separate get properties for mutable and immutable properties. So, you'd end up instead with line.cstart.x for reads from a CLine. Something like this:
interface CLine {
function get cstart():CPoint;
function get cend():CPoint;
}
class Line implements CLine {
private var _end:Point;
private var _start:Point;
public function get cend():CPoint { return _end; }
public function get cstart():CPoint { return _start; }
public function get end():Point { return _end; }
public function get start():Point { return _start; }
public function Line(x1:Number, y1:Number, x2:Number, y2:Number) {
_start = new Point(x1, y1);
_end = new Point(x2, y2);
}
}
I would create a flash.utils.proxy object. You could create a proxy object that has read only implementation of a child that is passed in.
Here is the documentation for creating a proxy object. http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/flash/utils/Proxy.html
Note: Proxy is pretty damn slow, since you'll be bypassing native object checking, and replacing it with a function call -- which when using a lot will be slow. I would do some simple performance testing first.
note: This is pseudo-code.
use namespace flash_proxy;
dynamic class ReadOnly extends flash.utils.Proxy {
private var target:Object;
public function ReadOnly(target:Object) {
this.target = target;
}
flash_proxy function getProperty(name:*):*
return target[name];
}
flash_proxy function setProperty(name:*, value:*):void
// throw an error or do nothing
}
}
You could then do:
var readOnly:ReadOnly = new ReadOnly(stage.loaderInfo.parameters);
readOnly.someparameter = 'newvalue';
trace(readOnly.someparameter); // should be old value