Software, Fitness, and Gaming – Jesse Warden

Blog

  • Flex Chronicles #18: Extending Controls & doLater

    When creating custom components, a lot of times it’s just easier to extend existing controls. For example, creating an auto-complete text field isn’t so hard; if you extend mx.controls.TextInput, the only code you have to write is for handling creation of the popup, and handling keyboard events.

    The problem is validation. It’s an extremely complex process that works in many passes. In Flash MX 2004 and 8, it was constructor, init, createChildren, draw, and size. There were other minor, but integral functions in that process, but basically it comes down to create it, set it’s default properties, and render the mofo. This strong arm approach didn’t scale to Enterprise apps very well.

    Enter the Flex framework. They further fine tuned the invalidation routines. Not only could you defer sizing and drawing to the next redraw event in the Flash Player, but all kinds of properties and styles. If you’re a seasoned Flash Developer, you know if stuff appears “not ready” you just wait a frame… or two. In Flex 1.5, things are no different. Typically, you can use a doLater (or 8) with simpler recursions for a lazy approach, or you can find what properties in particular start the process as most are pretty blatant (anything that calls invalidate).

    I may sound like I’m bashing it, and I am, but it truly is valuable. Drawing once per redraw is better than attempting to draw 300 times a second when you can only draw 30 times a second. This is before refactoring and optimization of course. It’s just it’s extremely confusing the nuances of how those affect those extending the framework classes. You shouldn’t use Composition over Inheritance because you’re afraid of extending a class, instead feeling more secure by wrapping your own proxy methods around it as a safety net.

    As a component developer, you may think you can take advantage of this, and you can. All the plumbing is held mostly in mx.core.UIObject and all his CSS and LayoutManager friends have hooks nicely integreated. The problem is mixing methods that redraw your GUI immediately vs. later. So, if you write methods that draw your GUI, and mix invoking them elsewhere with doLater’s, you can get unexpected results. The reason for this is that doLater’s are added to an array, and dealt with next screen redraw. After they are dealt with, they no longer exist.

    I ran into a situation today where I was calling doLater in a class that extended TextInput, and they’d disappear off into the ether. The reason was, the method I was calling before was setting the “text” property. This is a getter / setter that actually causes invalidation. I’m doing the exact same thing in 2 places; calling a method that causes invalidation and then immediately calling a doLater after it. The only reason the second one fails is because the onEnterFrame spins off into the ether. The cause? Not sure. The first method is called when the internal component fires the enter key presseed event. The latter, broken, method is called in response of a List control being created in a popup being clicked on.

    My guess is, the List emitting an event, and immediately being destroyed via a call from a Delegate scoped function somehow ticks off the internal guts of the UIObject, confusing it’s scope, and thus refusing to deal with the methodTable. Meaning doLaterDispatcher is apparently never fired even though onEnterFrame is happily chugging away, 21 times a second, doing nothing useful, eating CPU cyles.

    My fix? Make all methods excluding the invalidation causing one to use doLater. Since there is no operator, similiar to public and private that goes something like “causesinvalidation”, I’ll just have to be extra mindful when extending controls that if I’m doing something that will cause multiple invalidations, I’ll have to provide a better conduit, such as a funnel method (you wanna redraw, you call me), or some other proxy.

    Bottom line, if you doLater’s are failing to fire, try converting all functions to a doLater and/or indentifying what property you are setting / method you are calling that is causing the invalidation and tread around it.

    …or build your own invalidation. Make a movieclip, make it’s onEnterFrame call your function via closure, and then immediately have it remove itself. This has worked flawlessly since Flash 4.

  • Flex Chronicles #17: PopUp’s in a Modal PopUp

    Flex 1.5 (and Flex 1, and Flash 8, and Flash MX 2004) have a class called mx.managers.PopUpManager that allows you to create modal windows. You don’t have to make them modal, but modality ensures that users handle the interface you’ve provided for them first and prevent them from doing anything else until they have.

    The problem is when you open multiple popups that are modal and have the same parent. A preferences form for example could be opened in a modal popup window which in turn launches another modal popup. It uses very low-level ActionScript to create a “mouse shield” that prevents user mouse clicks from activating anything behind the popup. This ensures that the user can only click on whatever is in front of the shield. Others have found that some keyboard presses can get through, but it’s rare enough to not be a problem.

    The problem here, however, is if you have a component in the 2nd popup that utilizes it’s own non-modal popup. Since some components, namely Panel’s and TitleWindow’s use a shadow that’s actually created in 1 depth below them in their parent’s drawing stack (timeline), the PopUpManager’s modal code compensate’s for this and moves the modal mouse shield 2 depths lower to give it breathing room. For some reason I can’t pin down, nor care to at this point, additional non-modal popups are put behind this lastest shield. So, in the case of a ComboBox for example, the popup list will appear behind your form AND the modality (mouse shield).

    My hack, after it creates the custom List component in a popup (think auto-complete field), is to have the component check if the parentDocument’s deletePopUp method is not undefined. If it’s not undefined, it’s a popup. If it’s a popup, I need to move my newly created List popup up 2 depths higher than the parentDocument that houses it. This works like a charm, but is a hack, breaks encapsulation, and might not work if she’s deeply nested in more than 1 level of popups.

    If you’re popups start appearing behind the modality, and you’ve ensured you’ve positioned them correctly, try swapping their depths to something at least 2 higher than their parentDocument.

  • Chicks Dig Hugs, Guys Dig Swords and Caves

    I usually like to discount these types of studies but this one is pretty dead on. It explains how behavioral studies into stress for women differs greatly than that of men. This is significant because previously it was assumed everyone had a fight or flight reaction to stress, whereas this study indicates women instead prefer to nuture relationships with other women as a reaction to stress.

    Corroboration Examples.

    Me: “Dude, today was stressful!” Goes to office, closes door, turns lights out, and proceeds to play single-player game to let off steam.

    Her Majesty: “Today was stressful!” Proceeds to tell me about her day, and wants to spend time together talking.

    Me: “Dude, this code is hard. I’m going to solve this or die trying!” Proceeds to actively and agressively focus 100% of all physical and emotional resources on solving problem.

    Her Majesty: “This project is challenging and I enjoy it, but this one particular person is driving me nuts!” Proceeds to go talk to female co-worker friends.

    I’m sure I could think of a few other scenarios where she acted just like me, however. For example, when she gets pissed in Counterstrike, she’ll grab the n00b cannon, some armor, and just run non-stop into every room shooting with abandon in a berserker rage.

    Anyway, pretty interesting to read the chemical reasons why we act the way we do.

    UCLA Study on Friendship Among Women

    Via her majesty.

  • My Website + Google = My Online Identity

    I just got an email from a recruiter of sorts. They want me to do phone Flex / Flash consultation for a 20 – 40 minute paid phone call. Apparently, Ether could make money if they employed some sales teams. It seems all of California is reaching out worldwide, looking for people to come to live and work there. The reason? To be tech-lead in their startup and manage contractors and outsourced individuals to make bling and fame in Web Deux Point OMG. If my hunch on what this call is about is correct, this’ll be the 3rd startup this month looking for Flexcoder meat.

    While I’m glad the resurgence in tech is creating a plethora of new companies & re-energizing budgets of old ones, one thing is abundantly clear: Google is the only company who inadvertently got Identity 2.0 remotely correct.

    Case in point, the recruiter wants me to fill out a form on their website with my personal information. Usually, I’m all for this. As long as my address and phone number isn’t required, I don’t care what you have documented about me. The address you can easily get on the internet, but when I put my digits out on the net a few years back, I got some whack phone calls.

    The phone number being a required field made me panic, and I gave up. I merely replied to her email with my digits. Four years ago, the paragraphs from a multitude of job websites, and the advice of being professional from a variety of role models would resound loudly in my head. I would have read the email 3 times, followed the instructions in my head, then followed them for real, and hand craft a response. Now that I’m not starving? Totally different. Granted, I’m still professional as can be, but I’m so sick of filling out my information on websites. In 2002, I polluted the internet like the pollen of Georgia does the atmosphere, and inputted my info on every job website I could find. Only Monster.com came through in the end (3 times in a row, w00t!).

    Nowadays? My website. Jessewarden.com has everything I need: contact information, blog entries in great supply to showcase code aptitude as well as a structure that gets me into search engines. While I still occasionally get an email from a recruiter who found me on Monster, most nowadays find me via email lists, referrals, or Google, typically the latter for the ones I only hear from once in my life.

    The time invested my personal website now provides more of a return on investment than time spent putting my information into OTHER websites years ago. My content equals more context. More context is more food for Google (and other engines, but who cares about them?) to parse. More relevant context means higher placement for relevant keywords. Those looking for things I want to be found for will find me and I don’t have to pay for Google AdWords either. I already get more potential opportunity than I can handle from just spouting my mouth off about technology and other things I think are cool.

    So, while the email from her, the recruiter, stated I should follow the link to fill out my information on their website to “register for our network of industry professionals”, I unprofessionally replied with just my phone number. I mean, if a company that on it’s about page states:

    [the company]…differentiates itself by its adeptness at finding the ‘tough-to-find’ industry specialist[s]…

    Then isn’t it logical to assume that if they are capable enough to type in “flex consultant” in a text field and pressing the enter key on Google.com, then they are more than capable of inputting the rest of my information into their database as well? Maybe it is quite a skill set jump from 1 text field to 12 for their web form, but I mean… seriously? Let’s define legwork here. You give the impression you are doing “hard work” by using Google when THEY are the ones who found me with MY help… they least you can do is transpose what is on my website into your database. If some info is missing, just call me or send me an email with the understanding I’ll part with it if it’s for a business transaction. Suddenly, there is no panic at me giving my information to yet another database out of my control and long term memory. I don’t even have to remember yet another password!

    You gotta give her credit though; I AM the unlucky #13 for those search results AND the description for the link goes something like:

    …still, f’me this is frustrating. Flex? You my bitch. Consulting? :: WHAP! :: Thank you… can I have another?

    Anyone willing to put faith in me after that rant certainly has perseverance.

    Heck, just re-read the email… apparently unless I fill out the form, I can’t get the consulting job. Give and take I guess.

    I just a obtained new bank debit card this week. My old one was getting pounded by a few services I don’t use and are hard to cancel. One in particular, eFax and I took no faith in their automated chat saying that “this chat is your confirmation of cancellation”. Words are cheap, bro, especially ones written for you as you click a button to automate everything you’ve said to me. You can’t block their monthly charges because they raise their price a few cents every month, thus dodging the flags the bank imposes.

    This was done because the banker I talked to was young, pragmatic, and already cynical to identify theft and other unblockable internet charges. Most bankers older than the woman I’ve spoken too tell me to contact the company in question; they don’t understand internet businesses don’t usually have brick and mortar locations I can waltz to in order to throttle idiots. Updating those services that matter isn’t so hard; most let me know they need to be updated when they try to charge and they can’t. For example, my Flashcom hosting was totally cool with giving me more time and not charging a late fee, but if history is any indication, someday soon my blog will stop working and my email will stop working in the middle of the day because Mediatemple takes no crap. To the point; these various companies inadvertently ask for my permission to do so. That’s cool; I’m in control and in this case, I’m the epicenter.

    When my email or website changes, however, that contact only information isn’t updated. All the countless sites I put contact info on is now inaccurate. Again, Google solves this problem. I just wait a week for it to re-index my site.

    While I think it’d be neat for some website run by a private company that exposed controlled access to your information globally to those who wanted it per your permission, right now Google already does that. I put on my website what information I want people to have access to, in this case, my email address, age, geographical location, date of birth, and profession. Google then exposes that information as relevant to those who usually need to know. When I update it, so does Google. Again, when that information changes (which isn’t often), so too does Google within a week or so.

    My website combined with Google’s ability to index it is my Identity 2.0 …I guess (haven’t watched the presentation Tony told me too, who has time for such things?).

    Why do recruiters then scour Google only to take out contact information of individuals to put into their database which in turn is usually not ever updated? Why not just leave it where it’s fresh, up to date (at least for me), and always accessible? You don’t need an on or off-site IT staff to manage your data; Google does it for you. Furthermore, this allows the individual to control what information is exposed, and if more is needed, you can email the person, in this case me.

    As I glance at another un-read email from LinkedIn.com, I ask the same question I ask myself every time, “What’s the point?” For those who don’t have an online presence (personal / professional website, LiveJournal, Blogger, MySpace profile, etc.) I can understand the need to “get yourself into” these places to increase your exposure, accessibility, and chance of positive opportunity. Not for me, though.

    I guess I’ll follow instructions and do what she asked. I’m probably a faster typist anyway, and I love to talk about Flex with people so what the heck. If my cell number gets hijacked, it’s all good, I didn’t like the look of it anyway; a stylish phone needs a stylish set of digits to go with it.