On 8/9/16, 8:35 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote:
>I don't think a model/view/controller is too much bloat. Don't >underestimate the value of consistency. Scrollbars, borders, etc. don't >have to be there as long as there is a way for an app developer to >manipulate them, which can be done with styles. Models and controllers are >different though, I think. I just don't want people to be frustrated using >FlexJS. > >I'm under the impression we are advertising the MVC-ness of FlexJS. When >we write an app the examples show models. Now maybe we just say that >application's have models and controllers, but I'd start to extrapolate >that in my head. Then when I wanted a custom component by extending >something that already exists, I'd see that it had a model and might want >to make use of it. And in fact, the more complex "composited" components like DataGrid would have an underlying model and view. The question is whether the "low-level" components need to or not. IMO, the MVC-ness of the components is important for folks building other components, but less so for the application developer. So as Harbs says, it might be that any upgrade over the basic Image is going to be a "composited" component but these low-level ones will the the exception to the rule. When folks do side-by-side compare of FlexJS output against other alternatives, I think we want as little overhead as possible. -Alex
