I like Express too! - Josh
On Jan 3, 2017 10:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > I think "Express" isn't a bad name for this. It implies that you can get > something running quickly. > > Another name I thought of was "Star" (FlexJS Star). > > A third choice might be "Prime", meaning the main one to use. > > ‹peter > > On 1/3/17, 12:14 PM, "Dev LFM" <developer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I've been listening this thread, sorry my intrusion.. > > > >Why not simply: > > > >- ComponentBase for the current set without beads, and "Component" for the > >ones with default beads included? > > > >I like "Express" too but not making much sense to me. > > > >My 2 cents ^^ > > > >2017-01-03 16:53 GMT+00:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The original thread is another example of where PAYG becomes PITA. On > >> another thread, Om wants to bake in HTML sanitization by default. IMO, > >> these are things that should go in a heavier component set with more > >> things baked in. IMO, this new, heavier component set would be the > >> default for FlexJS. No more forgetting to add DataBinding beads, or > >> SimpleCSSValuesImpl, etc. Fewer tags to write. > >> > >> I've asked Peter to start on it so you can see how to bake stuff in and > >> how much simpler it will make our examples. I think it will help in > >> getting folks started with fewer problems. I think we've proven that we > >> can composite basic things into more complex things. > >> > >> But, we need a good name for this set. I don't like "Heavy". Makes me > >> think it would be too fat and slow. I've ruled out for now "Kitchen > >> Sink", and "Full" (because it won't contain every bead). I've thought > >> about "Medium", "Typical", "Common", "Popular", "POC" (Proof of > >>Concept)", > >> "RP" (Rapid Prototyping). Don't like any of them. What name would > >> suggest that it is not on the place to start but that you could use it > >>in > >> production if you don't run into size/performance issues? > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 1/2/17, 11:20 PM, "piotrz" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Alex, > >> > > >> >That's what I'm missing. It's a bit better cause when I add bead > >> >"ItemRendererDataBinding" my getter has been fired, although binding is > >> >still not working. I've just pushed my code. - Not sure what can be > >> >wrong. > >> > > >> >I have to admit I'm still thinking to much Flex instead of FlexJS :) > >> > > >> >Piotr > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >----- > >> >Apache Flex PMC > >> >piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > >> >-- > >> >View this message in context: > >> >http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble. > >> com/FlexJS-MDL-Why-bindin > >> >g-is-not-working-in-MDL-example-tp57738p57795.html > >> >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at > >>Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >
