Hi Chris 2017-02-01 11:34 GMT+01:00 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
> Hi guys, > > I’d love to see basic go away. I already excluded it from the maven > distribution to avoid problems in IntelliJ. > > But, if my proposal of separating flexjs components from basic html tags are ok, we'll end with two. Right now is clear that doesn't has sense since both are essentially the same. But think that people using "imported component sets" (non original to FlexJS) like MDL (CreateJS, Bootstrap, or whatever), will need those tags that are HTML and not other components -> mdl:Button instead of js:Button, mdl layouts instead of js:Container, and so on.... SO for me we should have: Basic (with only those tags) and then HTML, MDL, Express, and others at the same level. So people could use this ones in isolation or combined if they one. This would require me to make some refactors in MDL to remove any dependency. Some of the MDL components (but very few right now) are behind this philosophy (i.e: Slider or RadioButton). For example UIBase or UIButtonBase should be part of Basic, but Button or Container should be part of HTML. In this way MDL components will extend UIBase but never depends on js:Button or js:Container.... > Didn’t see that “question 3” … what would these two swcs be? I am asking > because Maven has the concept of one primary artifact per module. We are > currently producing one main artifact and an additional artifact using a > classifier, but what are you talking about in this case? > I think Alex says: "instead of merging all SWF and JS classes in one SWc that rule them all, let's separate for platforms". For me it makes sense, since if you compile for HTML you don't need any swf classes right? so you end removing weight that make swc fat for nothing > > I also don’t know what “AUTO” is … > > Chris > > > > Am 01.02.17, 11:22 schrieb "carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von Carlos > Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > HI Alex, > > > 2017-01-31 18:41 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > > > OK, I have something working. It is in the "dual" branch I just > pushed. > > > > great :) > > > > But there is a catch: MXMLJSC requires Java 7 or greater and Flash > > Builder is packaged with Java 6. So, in order to use this > capability from > > FB, you will need to upgrade FB to use Java 7 as in this post [1]. > So > > that's the first question: Would we want to require folks to > upgrade FB > > to Java 7? I don't think we can script the upgrade to automate it > for > > people as there are permissions issues in the process. But > currently, I > > think it is worth it, since that means you don't have to use separate > > launch scripts to run the JS compile, although I think it is > possible to > > have a way to fall back to the current mechanism of SWF-only > compilation > > and use the separate launch script if folks can't upgrade. > > > > > IMHO, for FlexJS that is new tech we should not be looking at FB > anymore. > I understand it for old Flex SDK, legacy SDK goes with legacy IDE....is > right for me > But considering FlexJS, please we should concentrate on newer options > begin > developed > with FlexJS... > > > So that's question #2: Can I start replacing HTML with Basic? > > > > > I think yes, and I want to suggest something here. I created some basic > HTML tags (span, a, div, h1,...) > I think we should separate that tags for normal SDK components like > js:Container, js:Button... > those tags are the most basic structures, and FlexJS component is > somewhat > the immediate next level. > In cases like MDL, I could depend it only from basic tags and not from > FlexJS component. > Both avoiding actual confusion of user trying to use both a the time > and > better structuring and removing things > People will Neve use (or should never use). And if they want it...PAYG > and > introduce it in your build and your code. > > Makes that sense? > > > > question #3: Any objections to moving from one SWC per library to > two? > > > > > It seems ok to me at all. And this should remove weight as well > removing > dependencies that are not used never in the end > > > > Any objections to supporting "AUTO" as a special value? > > > > > Here can't help since don't know exactly what's what Fred did > > > Thanks! > > Carlos > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira Director General M: +34 607 22 60 05 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.avant2.es Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación necesaria.
