GreenSock

Yeah, in the AS2 version, I'd recommend setting allowDelete to false so that you can manage it for yourself. Then you can set up a listener for the "deleteKeyDown" event and in your handler check to see if the target is a TextField or not (or however you want to set up your logic).

Which version are you using? AS2 or AS3?

Oh, I think I see the problem. getItem() accepts a DisplayObject as a parameter, but you're passing it a TranformItem! BAD: _manager.getItem($e.items[i]).targetObject; GOOD: $e.items[i].targetObject;

I don't think this has to do with TransformManager/TransformItem. It sounds like you have a function that accepts a DisplayObject (or a variable that's typed as a DisplayObject), but you're passing it a TransformItem. It also seems like the code that's throwing the error is not what you've included in your post. Could you identify the specific line that's throwing the error?

If I understand your goal correctly, you'd need to access the targetObject property of the TransformItem, like: var g:* = _manager.getItem($e.items[i]).targetObject; Does that help?

Hm. Not sure why that's happening, but I doubt it has to do with a TransformManager problem. I'd need to see your code to know for sure, but I don't have a lot of time to dig into it anytime soon. Feel free to post, though, and if I (or anyone else) has time to take a peek, great. Do you have any onKeyPress event handlers or something? The flip seems to happen as soon as I press a key. Also, if you can, I'd HIGHLY recommend building your project in AS3. Not only is the core language MUCH faster, but the AS3 version of TransformManager has a ton of enhancements as it was rebuilt from the ground up with extra features. Just a thought. http://blog.greensock.com/transformmanageras3/ Cheers!

Yeah, unfortunately that's how Flash handles PNGs - transparent areas are clickable. There isn't a simple fix in TransformManager to avoid that, but I can think of two options you have: 1) Use a mask 2) Check out http://blog.mosessupposes.com/?p=40 for an idea of how to hack together a solution without a mask.

You're using the AS3 version, right? If you're setting it directly (and circumventing the TransformItem), there's no way for the TransformItem or TransformManager to know that the change occurred. That's why there's an update() method in TransfromItem - try calling that after you make your edit, or better yet, just change the width/height via the TransformItem instance. I was able to set the width/height of a TextField's TransformItem instance without a problem and it behaved as expected, but if you're running into trouble, please send me your code (via Private Message) and I'll look into it.

Did you know you can (and should) use the proxy to tween both the skew AND the _x/_y? Have you tried that?

Great!

I can't think of a reason why that would happen. Hm. Any chance you could send me a sample FLA (or two actually) that recreates the problem? Is it the AS2 or AS3 version? Do the parent SWF AND the child SWF have TransformManager compiled in them?

It's typically a bad idea to hard-code the depth levels like that because you're assuming there's nothing at that level even though there may be. Instead, you should use getNextHighestDepth() and let Flash tell you what's available. TransformManager adds some things to the stage (like the cursors).

Sure. It's much easier in the AS3 version - just make the TransformManager.rotationCursor point to whatever Shape you want. Same for the TransformManager.scaleCursor. In the AS2 version, you'll need to edit the function that creates the cursor/icon and drop your own code in there.

Cool. Glad you found it.

The nesting really doesn't matter, but you obviously can't have managed clips nested inside each other because if the user clicks on a child who is managed (and their parent is managed too), how would TransformManager know which one should be selected (child or parent)? And as mentioned previously, each TransformManager instance must manage items with the same parent, but you can create as many TransformManager instances as you want (one for each parent). Were you asking me to take the example from http://blog.greensock.com/transformmanageras3/ and wrap each of the items in Sprites (or several sprites) and republish? Again, it really won't make any difference other than the fact that if I want the selection of one item to deselect all the other items, I'd need to set up listeners on each TransformManager so that when an item is selected, the deselectAll() on the other TransformManager instances would get called. But is that what you're asking me to do? Maybe we should take this discussion offline at this point. Feel free to private message me or e-mail me.

Exactly. By the way, that gets you updates too. That means if you could build a similar tool in the same amount of time it took me at the same hourly rate, it would take over 131 years to break even as opposed to just purchasing the license and the corporate Club GreenSock membership (plus you wouldn't get all the bonus classes). I hope you see the value in it, but I'd certainly understand if you'd prefer to build your own or use an alternative tool.

No, that pretty much sounds like the same thing - if you're using my code in a product that you're reselling to multiple customers, that's essentially what the corporate Club GreenSock membership license permits. If you charge a one-time development fee for a particular project that uses TransformManager and the end product is freely available for anyone to use without paying any usage/access/license fees, you don't need a corporate Club GreenSock membership.

I understand your concern. It may initially seem like a lot of money, but please keep in mind that TransformManager represents over $20,000 worth of my time and if you try building your own similar tool, it will very likely cost you FAR more than the purchase price and corporate membership fee. I've gone through the headaches involved in getting a tool like TransformManager working. It may not seem complex, but if you talk to anyone who has tried building a similar tool, I'm confident they'll tell you that it's not an easy undertaking, especially with multiple selections and boundaries. If you do not think the tool is worth the price, that's okay - you're welcome to look for a less expensive alternative out there or build your own. The feedback I've received from customers has been overwhelmingly positive. Most say that the other tools out there don't compare in terms of feature set, flexibility, and ease of use. Here are a few reviews: http://evolve.reintroducing.com/2008/10 ... xperience/ http://blog.kevinhoyt.org/2008/08/13/gr ... nager-as3/ As for the corporate membership, if you look at what you get for the price, I think you'll find that it's extremely inexpensive. In fact, when I told my intellectual property lawyer the price of the memberships the other day, he laughed out loud because he thought it was much too inexpensive. Keep in mind that the only developers/companies that need to join at the corporate level are those who are charging end users usage/access fees for their product (not just a development fee), so they're following a similar model. Thanks for being honest about your concerns. Hopefully I've been able to address them, but please feel free to post or e-mail any other questions you may have.

Once again, great question(s)... In both scenarios, you're charging a usage fee for the software/site/service, so you'd need to join Club GreenSock at the corporate level. If end users could send cards for free (and you weren't charging designers a license fee to get the service), you would not need to join Club GreenSock at the corporate level. Does that clear things up?

As long as you're not selling (or distributing in any way) the source code and the designers (or senders of the greeting cards) aren't paying any usage/licensing/royalty fees, that's fine. If you're the only developer with access to the source code in that scenario, all you'd need is a single developer license. If, however, you're selling your tool to whomever is willing to pay your fee (not just a single client who hired you to do the project), that's essentially licensing it, and you'd need to get a corporate Club GreenSock membership. Or your client would - whoever is charging the usage/licensing/royalty fees. Make sense?

Great question. There are two factors to consider: 1) You need a license for each developer who has access to the source code. If you're the only developer, a single-developer license will suffice. 2) There are no additional licensing fees if you're using it in a web site (or application or component, etc.) that is freely available to the public, meaning you don't charge end users a licensing fee or access fee for your site/application/component. It doesn't matter if you are paid to create the site/application/component itself. For example, if you're developing a site for Nike that allows users to upload and place images on t-shirts and Nike pays you to build the site but they don't charge end users any fees to use the product itself, then you don't have to worry about any other licensing fees for TransformManager. If, however, you're using it in a web site or application for which end users are charged a fee to use or access, you need to simply join Club GreenSock at the corporate level that corresponds to the number of developers who will have access to the source code. See http://blog.greensock.com/club/ for details. The "Unlimited" level even includes TransformManager and the rights to use it in commercial projects with virtually no restrictions. Does that answer your question?

Sure. All TransformManagers are added dynamically

Sure, you can transform any of them, but a single TransformManager instance can only manage items with the same parent. So you'd need to create a TransformManager instance for each of them. Keep in mind that if you want one selection to deselect other items, you'd need to call deslectAll() on the other TransformManager instances. You would NOT be able to allow the user to multi-select items that belong to different managers and move/scale/rotate them all together. That functionality requires that the items have the same parent.

I bet it's a security sandbox violation. If you're going to load it from my site, you need to put this code in your Flex app: Security.allowDomain("www.greensock.com"); Otherwise your app won't allow TransformManager to access the stage.

This is almost always caused by the fact that the image hasn't fully instantiated when you call the update() or addItem(). Even when Flash fires the onLoadInit, sometimes it STILL doesn't accurately report the width/height which is essential for TransformManager. I'd recommend using a setTimeout() or TweenLite.delayedCall() to wait at least a few milliseconds AFTER the onLoadInit is called to call update() or addItem(). Try using trace() at that time to see if your image's width/height are reporting accurately.