Comments on: How to Build a Simple FLV Player in Flash and Flex using the PureMVC Framework.

By: newtriks

newtriks — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:13:21 +0000

Cheers Tad,

This was simply an example into the framework usage in a familiar flash based application. An flv player is as simple or complicated as you want or need it to be at the end of the day. The average joe developer out there may only need to stick in a flvplayback component and be done with it. However, most of my client video apps involve way more logic and splitting this up enables more flexibility in my application, just standard OOP practice, nothing fancy (wanna see extensibility and division of logic then check under the hood of Jeroen Wijering JW player ). TBH though this ain’t even split up this much, navigation separated from the video view, and a couple of proxies for video control and streaming, I don’t really see this as overkill. Now the beauty is if you wanted to rip out the flvplayback and add you own custom component your in a simple seat to drive on to accomplish this.

By: Tad

Tad — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:06:32 +0000

nice example, i prefer having more control over everything that is going on, an flv player is a relatively simple task, i don’t really see the value in splitting it up so much.

By: newtriks

newtriks — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:17:02 +0000

Well thats the beauty of this framework, really its totally up to you how you use it. I personally hate having to dip back into the View repeatedly and would keep logic most definitely out of the view. Most of my players have logic handled differently, whether it be controls acting/responding differently dependent on media handling i.e. Akamai or FMS etc, or various other event response’s throughout the application. Also keeping all logic in the View will actually make it less portable, if thats how you suggest handling it then I would be more inclined to built the player as a swc and use that in various applications but the limitations will soon arise in my opinion.

This is just my perspective, others can argue for and against but like I said, its good to have the flexibility to use it how you so choose!

By: eco_bach

eco_bach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:16:46 +0000

Nice example, however I think you miss one key point of PureMVC, portability of view components.
I would argue that all the logic for the flv player to be contained within the view component itself.

By: maxgxldealer

maxgxldealer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:08:09 +0000

nice content..
thanx man for sharing

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:07:22 +0000

It works well, thanks very much, I am very fond of make SWF, I will make our flv player onto web and use easily. I learn much from you!

By: Newbie

Newbie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:18:48 +0000

Very useful and understandable article, many thanks to author!

By: Wilson

Wilson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:04:46 +0000

AH, sweet! Thanks Simon – I hadn’t actually got to the point of writing it up and trying to compile against my version so I’m glad I asked. I was thinking “wow, have I been ambivalent to some vague caveat with actionscript arguments this whole time or what?!”… I’m glad to hear I might still be “getting it”… Best regards,

By: newtriks

newtriks — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:53:35 +0000

Heh heh its much simpler than that mate and your not going loopo on this one, this demo uses the pre V2 PMVC release V2 brought in the two arguments NAME and viewComponent NAME is the static const declared as the reference for the Mediator and the viewComponent is as before in pre V2. So your super statement should look like this:

super( NAME, viewComponent );

Sorry, my bad really I should get my self round to updating this app!

By: Wilson

Wilson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:29:13 +0000

Hi Simon, thanks a ton for taking the time to share your expertise of PureMVC and proper OOP! I have a noob question for ya.. when you call super(viewComponent); from the PlayerMediator constructor, how does Mediator differentiate between parameters? I see Mediator takes two, mediatorName:String and viewComponent:Object – I can see that their dataTypes match what is going on but there is no call to that first string parameter. I’m sure this is a compiler thing that is makes perfect sense to you guys, but its rather abstract to me at this point. Would someone please explain how the compiler knows to skip the first argument and move onto the second? Thank you much for your time!