Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Newbie
  1. Hi Jack, in the online documentation of LoaderCore.content, the documentation is not rendered entirely so the only example that is listed is ImageLoader (stumbled upon it accidentally while looking for functionality of the DataLoader class, now I found a whole lot more usefull remarks in the inline asdoc formatted comments) so I just came here to leave a notification http://www.greensock.com/as/docs/tween/ ... ml#content kind regards, Bertus
  2. hi Jack, In this case the loaded swf offers its root by itself to a framework. It seems that an error can occur because _cropContainer is null however at the same time _rawContent need not have a parent. So I added a not null check to the _cropContainer in the public setter for _rawContent of the ContentDisplay class; no error occurs and thread is run. added: && _cropContainer != null else if (_rawContent.parent == _cropContainer && _cropContainer != null) { _cropContainer.removeChild(_rawContent); with greetings
  3. Here's the SWFLoader subclass adding some functionality that I was missing. Hopefully it will not harm anyone especially me.... update: SWFLoaderBranch.zip
  4. A very big thank you, this solved the problem indeed. The goal is to have a dependency tree composed of loadermaxes to enable modular development, so there's a bunch of recursive functions iterating via the getChildren method, removing branches deepest first while removing pureMVC cores when applicable and replacing them by other modules with branches when applicable. Without stuffing memory We'll see how far we can take it... thanks again
  5. .... seems because they can still serve as an object key in the static _rootLookup dictionary putting this on end of the _dump function seems to solve the problem, for now (...?) if(this.vars.requireWithRoot is DisplayObject && scrubLevel == 3) { var existsAsRootLookupIndex:Boolean = (_rootLookup[this.vars.requireWithRoot] != undefined); if(existsAsRootLookupIndex) { delete _rootLookup[this.vars.requireWithRoot]; } } so would this change cause any other problems? which? would there be a better solution to the problem? thanks, kind regards, bertus