Please wait until we finish the replacing of FLEX and FALCON before doing package renaming.
The original point of org.apache.flex.html and org.apache.flex.html5 was to thinly wrap existing HTMLElements and give them Flex-like names (Label, TextInput). Other components in Basic are compositions of these pieces. And other composed components live in other SWCs like Charts. Then Carlos contributed thinly wrapped HTMLElements with the exact name of the HTML tag. IMO there should be another SWC of thinly wrapped HTML5 components also with the exact name of their HTML5 tag. Any bead needs to be considered for its re-usability. As Peter said, Core.swc and org.apache.royale.core should be for those things that should work across all platforms and component sets. So if we want interoperability between MDL and Basic, then all of those components need to be IUIBase, Bead, etc. Express is a special case since it is intended to be pre-compositions of Basic pieces, so consider the harder interoperability between MDL or any other component that may not have a SWF equivalent The interesting thing is whether some of our models and layouts are re-usable in other component sets. I think models may be valid to be in a core package. Not so sure about layouts, controllers. So factoring all of that in, it makes me want to have a deeper tree with royale.basic.html and royale.basic.html5 and royale.basic.composite to indicate the internals of a component, but maybe the internals don't matter and we should just put it all under royale.basic, but I think there are two different DateField implementations for html vs html5. My 2 cents. Hopefully we'll arrive at a good solution for all of this. -Alex On 11/1/17, 8:08 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]> wrote: >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=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.sa >>felinks&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34 >>438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=%2FC5NUcakuJBmYXl >>yLkwn0sbK70CSqfHws0dd7TdkHKA%3D&reserved=0. >> protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke> >> >>> din.com >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdin.com% >>2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443879 >>4aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=EQlGVw8GupspZZry5lZiBk >>hWlViIRfGtS9wDqkZEqZs%3D&reserved=0>%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 >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fedin.com >>%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 >>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=1OO1FLJlnlZMKAtrSoeK% >>2F6%2BLyTQfemMBd2dL%2B%2Fb8l%2B4%3D&reserved=0>%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a >>53552& >> 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%2Fna01.sa >>felinks&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34 >>438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=%2FC5NUcakuJBmYXl >>yLkwn0sbK70CSqfHws0dd7TdkHKA%3D&reserved=0. >> 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: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked >in.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8% >7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=2nur >AspysiPjdXyVYc55M85vFfCShzuIbGyorkdDzpg%3D&reserved=0 ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.linke >din.com%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685 >e1708d5213a77a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364514573607 >00281&sdata=K1QYMvmEX%2BssGx%2BpDKkzwuOqozi8VyIvFfUktR2%2Ft7Q%3D&reserved= >0> > >GitHub: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co >m%2Fpiotrzarzycki21&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1484e5ad9814c685e1708d5213a77a8%7Cf >a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636451457360700281&sdata=dlQsZxV >D5ImxvzE8d2zYm0e65Vp6sxYYDxhbj%2FRyozc%3D&reserved=0
