Well the skinning is one of the things I liked most with Flex and I bet others like it too ... eventually it would be possible to create a component set that supports skinning and have the user choose if he wants performance or skinning (even if I think that we might be able to provide skinning without too much performance drawbacks). If we drop AMF and Skinning, I can't really see the benefit over using something like Typescript. But on the upside of dropping AMF would be that I don't have to continue supporting BlazeDS ;-)
Chris ________________________________________ Von: Alex Harui <[email protected]> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2016 17:10:11 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: AW: [FLEXJS] Strange Flat manifest On 5/19/16, 7:01 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: > >We already have enough duplicated code is my opinion on this. >We shouldn't start duplicating stuff and should rather implement skinning >the same way it was done in Flex4 ... or do it the way I did it for the >Flat example by using the Flat components where I wanted them and using >the normal ones where there weren't any Flat ones. Well, in FlexJS I am promoting the idea of "component sets". Many of the SWCs will represent a set of UI widgets like Button, CheckBox, etc for a particular JS UI framework. We have pieces for CreateJS and Jquery already. HTML5 might have extra components only available in HTML5. Flat is sort of an attempt at Bootstrap (but needs more advanced CSS support before it can really be Bootstrap). Many of these component sets will be able to re-use the basic Label, for example. So that's why there is "duplication". Now we could require that component sets must subclass/wrap anything it borrows from the HTML SWC so it has its own package, but each subclass costs a little bit in download/startup and the compiler already supports this duplicate mapping so I'd rather let folks leverage it and save a little. Especially if the only thing we need to do to make it easier for Maven is to populate the catalog.xml with the mappings that aren't in the SWC. Anyone is certainly welcome to use a mix of namespaces for their UI widgets, but the advantage of using one is that you can remap the xmlns and switch component sets that way. Flex 4 skinning is inefficient: it is two UIComponents for every component (the main component and the Skin). The MX/Spark port to FlexJS will duplicate Flex 4 skinning and its inefficiencies, but I don't see a reason to push that onto the JS frameworks we are trying to emulate. In FlexJS we are trying to thinly wrap existing JS behavior, and not force Flash-isms into the JS code for performance reasons. The MX/Spark port will bring in some of the Flash-isms. Of course, folks are free to code up anything they want in their own component sets. -Alex
