Hi, sure, some of the classes can be in "html" instead of "core", but as the lib is "Core" I though it was the right choice. If it's only a matter of package change in applications like a did in all the examples affected, I think this means only a few changes.
For Container I want to return in the next hours to Basic since I think it should be in Basic, but ContainerBase in "Core" is ok. For the controller, I can return as well to basic and make a copy for Jewel. Let me know if you find more problems like this. I think a refactor like this is very beneficial for us, and we all should think that use to be no transparent and although I tried to do my best some things should arise. In the other hand, I fixed many things that was working due to some coincidences like many projects without Basic library dependency that was compiling magically 2018-05-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 yishayw <yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > Piotr Zarzycki wrote > > If yes - what does that mean that such controller like > > ItemRendererMouseController is in HTML? > > It's only there by name, the source is under Basic (which makes sense to > me, > I think controllers are part of the component set). > > I'm not sure why it can't be named > org.apache.royale.basic.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/ > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
