![flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface](https://coursesweb.net/addons/flash/as3_simple_script.jpg)
- FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE UPGRADE
- FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE FULL
- FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE SOFTWARE
- FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE CODE
For example, if you have a controller that is designed to control a specific type of View, you're not going to want to instantiate the full view for the test, but only the functionality that makes a difference for the test.
FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE CODE
This enables you to make sure that the code is succeeding or failing on its own merits, not based on the merits of the collaborator, or where the collaborator isn't appropriate for a test. Do this with enough things and suddenly you don't even need a preloader.Īnother advantage of coding to Interfaces is if you're doing unit tests on your code, which you should unless your code is completely trivial. This will compile on the frame where it is first used, so you no longer need to account for this in your preloading time.
![flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface](https://i1.wp.com/35.226.78.216/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1111.jpg)
This allows you to put real content in front of your users while the load process happens.īy the same token, you could have a timeline instance declared in the parent AS Class of type ISpaceShip with "Export for Actionscript in Frame N *un*checked. Once the Loader's contentLoaderInfo's COMPLETE event fires, you cast the contentto ISpaceShip, and the implementation of that (whatever it is) is never compiled into your loading swf. You could load an external swf whose main Document Class implements ISpaceShip.
![flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface flash actionscript 3.0 class or interface](https://img2.docer.com.ar/image/l/v0c85.png)
While the existing answers are pretty good, I think they miss the chief advantage of using Interfaces in ActionScript, which is that you can avoid compiling the implementation of that Interface into the Main Document Class.įor example, if you have an ISpaceShip Interface, you now have a choice to do several things to populate a variable typed to that Interface. Anyhow guess point being in the real world people don't always make use of these things and it can bite you in the ass. I've been in this boat before plenty of times, telling someone xyz needs to be upgraded to get abc functionality that will make doing my job 90% easier.
FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE SOFTWARE
The software is not written in a modular way that allows them to maintain backwards compatibility.
FLASH ACTIONSCRIPT 3.0 CLASS OR INTERFACE UPGRADE
The company that makes their software/hardware setup for scanning packages and weighing things as they come in and out (inventory) is telling them they have to upgrade to a newer OS/Server and newer hardware to keep with the software. In real life, I have a friend who runs a meat packing/distribution company in Chicago. For all database connectors, you want it to be able to connect to database, and run queries, so you might define an interface that says the classes must have a "connect()" method and a "doQuery(stringQuery)." Now lets say Bob writes the implementation for MySQL databases, now your client says well we just paid 200,000 for new servers and they'll run Microsoft SQL so to take advantage of that with your software all you'd need to do is swap out the database connector. This is the exact thing described, you create an interface that defines generally what something will do, say a database connector. The ability to swap out a whole functional piece is made easier by "dependency injection" (if you don't know this phrase, please google it). I can assume that from A I can code to B', you can assume from C you can code to B', and when bob gets done with B we can just plug it in. If we define B' as an interface for B, we can quickly and relatively easily define B' (relative to defining B, the implementation), and all go on our way. To take a hypothetical say I'm working on A and you're working on C, and bob is working on B. Java comes to mind immediately but I'm pretty sure all OOP languages (C++, C#, etc.) include some mechanism for creating interfaces.Īs stated by Jake, you can write interfaces as "contracts" for what will be fulfilled in order to separate work. I basically agree with the answers posted so far, just had a bit to add.įirst to answer the easy part, yes other languages have interfaces.