Comments on: Strongly Typed Proxies in AS3

By: Maxim Porges

Maxim Porges — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:15:54 +0000

I’ve been working on AOP for AS3 in a project called Loom, and will be releasing a public beta shortly. There are a few code samples on the blog, and if you sign up for the private alpha on the discussion group I’ve been releasing the library in its current working form.

http://loom.ninjitsoft.com

The project is built for general-purpose bytecode weaving in AS3 for AS3, but I started with support for type-compatible AOP proxies because that was where I saw the most need for my own projects.

Cheers,

- max

By: TroyWorks

TroyWorks — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:15:17 +0000

That’s brilliant. I was having the same problems with Proxy. I wanted to be able to wrap a class but still keep strict typing on the interfacing of it. (I luv me autocomplete and type checking).

Another cool use for this is somewhat like multiple inheritance, you could similar to the prototype chain, use this approach to merge/coordinate changes to two or more overlapping models (e.g. a container to manipulate groups of visual items).

By: joe

joe — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:32:14 +0000

Can you tell that I never compiled this code? :) I have compiled stuff exactly like it though, at least.

By: Mansour

Mansour — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:54:27 +0000

Constructor to SmartProxy class should be renamed ‘SmartProxy’ rather than ‘SmashableProxy’ :-)

By: Mansour

Mansour — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:44:04 +0000

Great post – Thanks.

By: Adam Brod

Adam Brod — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:51:52 +0000

Hey Joe-

That’s a helpful post. It would still be a lot nicer if AS3 gave us the ability to create dynamic proxies without writing a new class, but your solution is about as elegant as it’s going to get with the current language. Thanks for writing it up.

If you’re so inclined, there is a bug logged with Adobe around creating dynamic proxies, if you (or your readers) want to vote for it, perhaps they’ll add support in the future. :)

https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/ASC-3136

Cheers,
Adam

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:11:09 +0000

Joe, this is great stuff. I look forward to your follow up article.

By: sebestenyb

sebestenyb — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:09:11 +0000

keep on posting these cookies, i’m very curious about those testing suites, we badly need some similar stuff

By: joe

joe — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:05:56 +0000

Yes, it was wrong. Thanks for catching that mistake!

By: sebestenyb

sebestenyb — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:25:43 +0000

return (_smashable[functionName] as Function).apply(_smashable, args);

this line seems to wrong, shouldn’t it be

return (_obj[functionName] as Function).apply(_obj, args);