I agree with Alex in most respects, but have a couple of other suggestions, below.
I think the basic package should wrap (thinly, as possible) HTML/JS and the SWF implementation mimic that but it doesn't necessarily need to have the same names as HTML/JS uses and can be more platform agnostic. I do think that we should refactor some things however. FlexJS "Core" really needs to have all of the stuff that's universal and makes FlexJS work. There are a number of interfaces in it that really belong in HTML (basic). Imagine if we had a Basic project that included its own core, shapes, and UI components. Then if you wanted to make a different set, you'd use the universal Core and model your new set on Basic. ‹peter On 7/21/16, 9:54 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >On 7/21/16, 3:00 AM, "Harbs" <ha...@printui.com> wrote: > > >>3. I¹d like an interface which mimics the Flash APIs as closely as >>possible. It might not make sense to have every element have a ³graphics² >>object because it could inflate things unnecessarily, but I¹m thinking >>that it might make sense to rename GraphicsContainer to CompoundGraphic >>which would have all the drawing commands as first class methods. That >>should make converting Flash objects to FlexJS objects pretty >>straight-forward myObj.graphics.drawRoundedRect() would become >>myObj.drawRoundedRect(). I¹d like to keep the actual method signatures as >>similar as possible. > >Without thinking about it too much, my opinion is that the basic >components job is to thinly wrap browser behavior so the JS output is as >lightweight as possible, so I would be tempted to trade away Flash API >compatibility to another SWC (which is happening in the MX/Spark port). > >My 2 cents, >-Alex >
