Harbs, If you will start working on that do not forget about maven changes. If you don't want to touch it during your work just let me know and I will make the changes there. It would be great also raise Issue on github and make changes under feature/branch - it will be helpful to make changes on Maven sight.
Thanks, Piotr 2017-11-01 16:03 GMT+01:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > I find I very often have to open the entire asjs repo so I can search for > a specific class. > > > On Nov 1, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Peter Ent <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree, the namespaces can remain. The packaging is more for > > logic/organization to make it easier to get into the code. Right now I > > scroll through several projects trying to find something in the .html > > package and it could be in several places. So if have something in > > DragDrop project, it probably should be in the org.apache.royale.dragDrop > > package somewhere. That can still make to the basic namespace or we can > > move the code into the Basic project but into the dragDrop package. > > > > ―peter > > > > On 11/1/17, 10:02 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > >> I think the namespaces would probably stay the same. > >> > >> We currently have the following namespaces and I don’t see a need to > >> change them: > >> > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/basic > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/svg > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/express > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/flat > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/mdl > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/cordova > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/google > >> library://ns.apache.org/royale/createjs > >> > >> Harbs > >> > >>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Guys, > >>> > >>> Just quick question if I will have this package: "royale.basic.beads" - > >>> What will be the namespace for it ? If I would like to add from that > >>> package some components ? > >>> > >>> Piotr > >>> > >>> > >>> 2017-11-01 14:42 GMT+01:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>>> This makes a lot of sense to me. I think that if we’re going to do > >>>> this, > >>>> the time to do so is now. > >>>> > >>>> I’m willing to help with this reorganization. > >>>> > >>>> Harbs > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Peter Ent <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm glad you brought this up. I've been giving some thought to > >>>> refactoring > >>>>> Royale into more logical components. We've done this before, but I > >>>>> think > >>>>> some refinement is in order before we could have a 1.0 release that > >>>>> would > >>>>> make sense to the general public. I think streaming and moving things > >>>>> around will make it easier for people to find things. I've flattened > >>>>> out > >>>>> the package structure a bit, opting for more packages than a deeper > >>>>> tree. > >>>>> I'm also just concentrating on a few a the projects and packages; for > >>>>> the > >>>>> most part the others seem ok to me with minor clean-up. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's a saying that goes, "it is easier to criticize than create" > >>>>> so I > >>>>> put this up for your thoughts and suggestions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's what I'm thinking (these are package paths, not > >>>> frameworks/projects > >>>>> directories): > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.core: contains only interfaces and maybe a handful of concrete > >>>>> classes. This package would be the interfaces common across all > >>>>> frameworks/projects like IBeadModel. It would also contain the > >>>>> "engine" > >>>>> that builds the structure but that could be in its own package as > >>>>> well. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.events, royale.utils, etc found in the current Core project > >>>>> would > >>>>> remain almost as-is unless some clean up is needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.html: contains only classes that correspond to HTML DOM > >>>>> elements. > >>>>> This is the HTML project right now. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.html5: contains only classes that correspond to the HTML5 DOM > >>>>> elements. These are in the HTML5 project right now. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic: contains the foundation for the user interface > >>>>> frameworks > >>>>> and can be used in its own right. The components here provide > minimal, > >>>>> common functions and can be extended with a set of beads and models. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.models: contains the models used by royale.basic > >>>>> components. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.views: contains the views used by royale.basic > >>>>> components. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.controllers: contains the controllers used by > >>>>> royale.basic > >>>>> components. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.layouts: contains the layouts used by royale.basic > >>>> components. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.beads: contains the non-visual/non-model beads used by > >>>>> the > >>>>> components. These would include the dataProvider beads, the accessor > >>>>> beads, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.basic.supportClasses: contains additional components used by > >>>>> the > >>>>> main components, such as itemRenderers and data groups. > >>>>> > >>>>> I thought that having the deeper nesting of models, etc. was too > >>>>> heavy. > >>>>> > >>>>> royale.composite: (new) contains "more than basic" components such as > >>>>> DataGrid, Accordion, and some others that are composed of basic > >>>>> elements > >>>>> and not necessarily used in every application and they have more > >>>>> complex > >>>>> code structures. It would lighten the basic package as well. This > >>>>> royale.composite package would have sub-packages similar to basic: > >>>>> royale.composite.models, royale.composite.views, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Food for thought, > >>>>> Peter > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/1/17, 4:13 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Right now the vast majority of Royale classes are under > >>>>>> org.apache.royale.html. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It seems odd to me that the default package path for basic > components > >>>> are > >>>>>> under html. It feels like html should really be reserved for classes > >>>>>> which really belong in html (such as HTML elements and the like). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I¹m not sure it¹s worth the effort of changing it even if it *is* > >>>>>> weird, > >>>>>> but I wanted to bring it up. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Additionally, I don¹t think there¹s enough clarity on which classes > >>>>>> belong to org.apache.royale.core and which ones belong to > >>>>>> org.apache.royale.html. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Harbs > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Piotr Zarzycki > >>> > >>> mobile: +48 880 859 557 > >>> skype: zarzycki10 > >>> > >>> LinkedIn: > >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke <https://na01.safelinks. > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke> > >>> din.com <http://din.com/>%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C% > 7Cb2624dd11e1149b9cd4708d5213128e > >>> 4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% > 7C636451417380641991&sdata=B > >>> t%2FEus3HN2Ha6CRup%2FiWatRATp2K6MvjnpTjBkcfyu0%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link> > >>> edin.com <http://edin.com/>%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552& > data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb2624dd11e1149b > >>> 9cd4708d5213128e4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364514173 > >>> 80641991&sdata=YzxdiDa2zZ8etKJcCRV25u0IM29zNh > okvGMNbbGVciI%3D&reserved=0> > >>> > >>> GitHub: > >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c <https://na01.safelinks. > protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c> > >>> om%2Fpiotrzarzycki21&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb2624dd11e1149b9cd4708d52131 > 28e4%7 > >>> Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451417380641991&sdata= > fDTE > >>> jLi5G2KNubKsEUe%2FK7S1ZgODVXV5Qs8LfuzAYuo%3D&reserved=0 > > -- Piotr Zarzycki mobile: +48 880 859 557 skype: zarzycki10 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
