Cliff,

Thanks for handling those fixes for me. I've updated my local copy, and it looks like we're good to go.

- Jim

This is my first attempt at a PureMVC application, so I'm open to constructive criticism. The zip has both the Ruby/Rails and the Flex source, and it's too large to upload to this forum. I also don't have Rails hosting as yet, so there's no online demo, but you can get the zip and read a fuller description of the application here: http://www.robsondesign.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/28/flex-on-rails-iteration-one/

Let me know what you think!

- Jim

In the framework code and sample applications, there seem to be some redundant "implements" directives.

For example, in the Architecture sample, the RolePanelMediator class is declared like so:

:

public class RolePanelMediator extends Mediator implements IMediator
However, Mediator implements IMediator; therefore, as I understand it, any subclass of Mediator implicitly implements IMediator. That being the case, the explicit "implements" in the subclass appears redundant. What is the rationale for including it?

I want to implement IProxy directly because I don't have a use for getData or setData.

@Cliff -

Thanks! I found it in the Model while you were posting your reply - but I appreciate your explanation.

-Jim

@Rhysingsun - Thanks for the reply.

I looked in    org.puremvc.core.view.View, and I don't see a registerProxy method.

Your answer seems to presuppose that I plan to extend Proxy, but I don't. What I'm suggesting is that I would like to bypass IProxy altogether (Proxy implements IProxy).

What is the purpose of the getProxyName method? Admittedly, I'm still a PureMVC n00b, but at this point I don't envision using this method very often. What would be the consequences if I were to write my proxy classes without implementing IProxy - and thereby omitting this method? I would like to write proxy classes that extend Notifier but do not implement IProxy. Would this be wrong, and if so, why?