Word. I’ve been trying to figure out how to make a 3D Flex UIComponent with Papervision 2 for a while now and have come up with a system that seems to work. I learned a lot from the YahooMapInPV3D AIR example, as well as a ton of other random posts. Check out this demo and see the source code:
How it Works…
The important class is the FlexBasicView. This extends Papervision’s BasicView, making it easy to just add whatever 3D objects you want and to apply MovieMaterials to them all in one place, separate from the main Flex application. In this class, a few things happen.
First, you create a main DisplayObject3D called sceneManipulationContainer into which you are going to add your Flex-skinned Papervision 3D objects (planes, cubes, etc.) for easy manipulation. You add that to the FlexBasicView. The next thing is the most important: renderMovieClips(). This packages your UIComponents, which themselves can only be instantiated 3 children down from the main application (for now at least), into a movieClip that is used to create the MovieMaterial. Once that movieClip is made, you then pass it to the MovieMaterial. Then you create your DisplayObject3D (Plane in this case), and add your material, which is basically a thick nest => material(movie(uiComponent)).
The movie movieClip (the one used for the material) is then added to a parent movieClip, called movieParent. And this movieParent is added to the FlexBasicView.
After this, another important step must take place, and this is straight from the YahooMapInPV3D example. You first add an event listener for the plane (InteractiveScene3DEvent.OBJECT_MOVE). Then once the object is created and there is movement, this event is handled by the method skinDisplayObject3D(). What this does is align the movieClip/bundle/material into the right place on the Plane. Strange… But it works!!!
All you have to do now to add custom Flex UIComponents onto this plane is to 1) get a reference to your uiComponent which is 3 levels down from the main application, and 2) pass them into a movieClip which then is passed into the “movie” movieClip:
var newMovieClip:MovieClip() = new MovieClip(); newMovieClip(Application.application.myUIComponent); movie.addChild(newMovieClip);
Better Design Patterns for the Future
I would like to have separated this FlexBasicView into more well defined classes, but I don’t have the time right now to dig that deep. Basically, you would create a UIComponentMaterial class that did all the movieClip configuration, and this would take in a UIComponent from the 3-level-down location. To make this so you don’t have to do Application.application.myComponent, it would be nice to create this on the main app, and to have a method like UIComponentMaterial.addUIComponent(myComponent) that took care of everything for you. However, the UIComponent you use for the MovieMaterial skin must also have a reference to the DisplayObject3D in order to become the correct width and height and whatnot, so this might get tricky. John Grden’s WinterWonderland screencast, which is a pretty hardcore example of what papervision can do, has an excellent example of how to let the movieClip used to make a MovieMaterial have reference to its parent MovieMaterial AND the DisplayObject3D it’s skinning. It’s pretty neat, and maybe that can be applied in this situation.
The goal would be a scenario something like this:
-In the main application mxml file, add the 2 canvases and make the 3rd layer “FlexBasicView”
<Application> <Canvas id="pv3dContainer"> <me:FlexBasicView id="flexBasicView"> </me:FlexBasicView> </Canvas> </Application>
-Then it would be nice to be able to just put some MXML nested in the FlexBasicView tag that created Papervision components skinned with your UIComponent. Something like this:
<Application> <Canvas id="pv3dContainer"> <me:FlexBasicView id="flexBasicView"> <me:sceneManipulationContainer> <me:FlexPlane id="extendsDisplayObject3D" material="{myUIComponent}"> </me:FlexPlane> <me:FlexCube id="alsoExtendsDisplayObject3D"> <me:MaterialList> <Lots of Materials with UIComponent references> </me:MaterialList> </me:FlexCube> </me:sceneManipulationContainer> </me:FlexBasicView> <Canvas id="2ndLayer"> <me:CommentBox id="myCommentUIComponent"/> <me:ProfileBox id="myProfileUIComponent"/> <me:CustomBox id="myUIComponent"/> </Canvas> </Canvas> </Application>
Another way of doing that would be to stop at the
Now for the glitches…
Some things I’ve noticed.
- 1) You’ll notice I have a custom Font in the assets folder. This is because, for some reason, the Text appears in the top left corner if you use Flex’s default font. The main glitch you get in all cases is something unexpected appearing in the left corner.
- 2) If you nest things too deeply, you will get a white box appearing in the top left corner. This seems to be somewhat arbitrary and I haven’t pinpointed the reason why it happens. For example, if you add another nested DataGrid into the CommentBox that comes with the source code, nesting it into a FormItem (just for testing purposes), the white box glitch appears. Maybe I am missing something about the way Flex UIComponents are supposed to be nested? This also happens in more normal cases.
- 3) Sometimes there are differences between Flex Boxes vs. Panels/Canvases. I’ve had HBoxes show the white box in the corner too…
- 4) In the renderMovieClips() function in FlexBasicView, there are many ways to addChild the movieClips. Sometimes it works with just one. Sometimes every nested UIComponent should get their own newMovieClip, and then you add all of them in the order you want to a main movieClip as shown above.
- 5) Things with Popups don’t work well, such as the ComboBox. And there’s no way to capture the Popup from that class unless you change either the PopupManager or create a CustomComboBox. You can grab the Combobox.dropdown, but it also tweens, so it’s sketchy.
- 6) The scrollbar is jumpy.
- 7) In some situations you can comment out //movieParent.addChild(movie) and //addChild(movieParent) and you’ll still see it work, in other situations you won’t.
-
If the width of your component is not a % (like width=”100%”), it may create that white box in the corner. That is, if your width is an absolute value. - 9) Sometimes, if you add your UIComponent in MXML it won’t work. So you just do it in actionscript. But sometimes you can also add your UIComponent in MXML, and also say “addChild(myComponent)” in actionscript at it will work.
Flex and Papervision Don’t Mix Well…
But with enough time, it’s definitely possible
As you can see, this is very rough; there’s no real system for making Papervision Flex UIComponents yet, though I wish there was! Maybe the guys from OutSmart can shed some of their wisdom… I have just found that there are no examples on the internet of this being successfully done, and done in such a way that you can switch out components easily and apply it to different DisplayObject3D’s. So I’m throwin this out there for everyone to mess around with
Needless to say, Flex doesn’t play very well with Papervision, at least in my experience. Sure there are a few examples on the web of using Sprites in Flex, like the 3d product gallery, but the real goal is to have 3D Flex UIComponents. If anyone knows of a better way to do this, by all means let us know. I’m looking forward to seeing how this can be done better.
Cheers,
Lance
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!



















































Better than Polymorphic Associations
Preamble: Acts_as_dags may prove all you need as a plugin for all content nesting and association in Ruby on Rails. No more acts_as_polymorphs, acts_as_commentable, acts_as_taggable, has_many :through, has_many => :as ownable, etc. All of that can be easily handled using acts_as_dag and should allow you to build anything you want and have it be way more customizable than any blogging engine or wiki out there so far.
The Story
I’ve recently been trying to design a framework abstract enough to build
all of the web 2.0 stereotypes (blog, wiki, forum, social network, e-
commerce, etc.). As such, I’ve looked a lot into how to create
classes dynamic enough to make components that are reusable in all circumstances.
The message is starting to spread around that 90% of the time you
don’t need to use Inheritance, and a lot of Plugins are starting to
make Rails apps a beautiful Composition of classes, using Modules.
However, I’ve noticed that people use a lot of the same patterns when
they design their Plugins: acts_as_taggable_on_steroids and
acts_as_commentable both basically use “Polymorphic Association” to
allow any of your custom models to be tagged or commented. A lot of
the other ones are like that too. And this is definitely NOT DRY.
I’ve also noticed that most of the open source apps (Mephisto,
Insoshi, CommunityEngine, Adva CMS, Radiant, etc.) all have their own
interpretation of how to divide up the base classes or objects to make
“a web 2.0 site”. In short, there is no consistency where there needs
to be a lot.
What it boils down to is that there are Objects and Relationships Between Objects.
Also called Nodes and Links. Or Models and Join Models. Why should there be
A BlogPost, Entry, Content, WikiPost, Comment, Article, and Document when they
are all the same thing, NODES? And why should you have a Taggable, Commentable,
Favoritable, or Attachable when they are all the same thing, LINKS?
Thinking as such, it seems that all of these web 2.0 applications can be
modeled much much better and in such a way so they are COMPLETELY
modular and scalable. How can this be done? Direct Acyclic Graphs.
How could you create a blog with comments, tags, and albums? You
could use the standard Plugins, but that is not DRY at all since they
are basically performing the same actions just with different names.
You could also just build it as you go, saying X belongs_to Y and Y has_many
X’s, but in the end your just hard coding non-DRY subclasses…
Instead, all you need are Links and Nodes. Links and Nodes.
(wikipedia image)
Now say you call your root node Content, and your root link Link.
Content could then be subclassed by Post, Comment, Album, etc., models
which only provide extra functionality but which are saved through STI
(Single Table Inheritance) to the database. Then using acts-as-dag,
a brilliant plugin so that your Node objects can have multiple parents
(instead of using the very limited hierarchical nested set algorithms
as seen in better_nested_set which only allow your objects one parent)
you could have a Post with many Comments (Post as the “parent” of the
Comment), while also having the privilege of being able to give those
same Comments another parent. Example:
Then in the Link class, which is basically the Join Model like
“Taggings” for acts_as_taggable_on_steroids, you say what Model is
allowed to be the parent of what other Model. So that may look
something like this:
class Link < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_dag_links :polymorphic => true, :for => {’Content’ => ['Content','Comment','Post'], ‘Post’ => ['Comment']} endWhile this is a very simple example, it basically says that you don’t
need the Plugins because they aren’t DRY, or that the Plugins can be
refactored to create a generic LINKABLE one. Your Link join model does
all of the Polymorphic Associating and wiring of the Plugins PLUS
gives you the option of assigning those comments or tags to other
objects. Very cool.
This means that you can have a Post in your Blog have multiple parents
(i.e. stored in the database with a reference to “My Blog about Rails” and
“My Blog about Flex”). It also means that more complex things like taxonomies
and ontologies can be applied to web 2.0 applications, and this could
really change the way data is structured in our oh-so-common blogs.
Best,
Lance
P.S. I’m doing this because I hate Wordpress. I can’t do anything to make it look nice and do important things unless I work on it for weeks! It’s a terrible design.
Hide Sites
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!