Hi Alex, 2018-05-07 7:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> For something to be in Core, it really should be a "universal > implementation", meaning it contains code that just about every component > set will need. > that's what I tried, and was what I have in mind. So I think we're aligned in concept > > I don't think Container is universal. ContainerBase might be. > Right, Container is now in Basic and ContainerBase is in Core. I think that's how it should be. > ItemRendererMouseController and DataItemRenderer? Not sure. > As this is a bit unclear for all I refactored to ItemRendererMouseController to IBeadController, that I think is better and returned ItemRendererMouseController to basic, and Jewel has now it's own copy. My personal thinking is that ItemRendererMouseController should be in core, since I don't see much specialization here and don't see the reason to have this code duplicated, but Harbs and Yishay complain about package refactor, but I think we should still expect some changes of this style as we approach a 1.0 version, and then probably will settle. Since are changes very easy to do in final Apps, I think we should balance a bit to have the best organization now, since more later could be very complicated to do such thing. So time is now, and although we see our app break, think that solution should be easy to fix. For DataItemRenderer since I didn't see complains I left in Core, since it had more implications. But if people complains I can invest time to return to Basic. > > FWIW, trying to eliminate all dependencies from Jewel to Basic doesn't > make sense to me. Especially if it is going to result in duplication of > code. So what if Jewel components want to use some Basic class? Sometimes > a Basic implementation is all you need. > Here I not agree, and surprises me since I read lots of emails from you talking that "we'll be creating more UI sets", that's what we did we some experiments (Flat,CreateJS), and full set (MDL), and now (Jewel). So Basic should be just other one. That's at least what I understand from your words through this years. Jewel born from Basic since at that moment I was thinking in make all components inherit Basic, and as well for a matter of convenience and make it work sooner. In fact, Jewel is the work done on Basic on steroids, is just a continuation. But as we talked and developed, it was clear that Jewel should take its own path, and I think is not good (or a bad design for us) if we obligate the user to link a library that is only there due to the code not well organized. We talked a lot in the last weeks that we need to pass UIBase to Core, and the same happen with other classes that are clearly Core. If people wants to use in its Application Jewel and then need some Basic functionality, he can do...but I don't want people to be obligated to do that. A part from that in doing this, I get 40% less size in Jewel Applications, and that means that we have code in CSSs and JS that was linked and not used. I don't want Jewel users to carry things they really need, I think we all wanted that. Thanks. Carlos > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 5/6/18, 10:28 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos > Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Hi Harbs, > > just commited a change that return the controller to Basic to html > package > let me now if that fixes your problem > > thanks > > Carlos > > > 2018-05-06 12:25 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > Just returned Container to Basic without problem. > > > > But seems to me that this change should not make any problem at all > for > > anyone, since is in the same package (core) and all examples build > without > > problem, so any other App should as well build without any change. > > > > > > > > > > 2018-05-06 12:00 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> dealing with ItemRendererMouseController there's a dependency in > >> DataItemRenderer, and that was needed to move to Core, since is > core in > >> itself. Thinking about it that controller seems to have a very core > >> functionality, so IMHO is that is better to upgrade Apps changing > "html" > >> package to "core". If I'm not missing something that change should > be > >> very straight forward to do (I made lots of this in examples, and > use to be > >> one or two places) > >> > >> I'll go to revise Container > >> > >> > >> > >> 2018-05-06 11:39 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > >> > >>> Hi Piotr, > >>> > >>> I'm using HTML only for some headings, at the moment, but as Harbs > said > >>> in the other thread about HTML, it was depending from Group and > that wasn't > >>> needed, and that make HTML pull the complete Basic dependency when > not > >>> required, and that's made lots of CSS be linked. > >>> > >>> So HTML for me was only used to use some H3, headings, and SPAN > >>> > >>> In the other hand the controller seems to me more from Basic so I > think > >>> is ok to return it to Basic, it doesn't nothing to do with HTML. > >>> > >>> In the end some last fixes are normal in a refactor like this. > >>> > >>> thanks! :) > >>> > >>> 2018-05-06 10:09 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki < > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>>> I'm a bit afraid to pull down changes. :) Let's think a bit more > about > >>>> that. Carlos wanted to totally separate each module. He didn't > want to > >>>> have > >>>> dependency in Jewel from Basic. > >>>> > >>>> As I understand he was using HTML module which seems to be > dependent on > >>>> Basic as well. > >>>> > >>>> His changes are get rid off Basic things not only from Jewel, but > also > >>>> from > >>>> HTML which makes Jewel clear - Am I right Carlos? > >>>> > >>>> If yes - what does that mean that such controller like > >>>> ItemRendererMouseController is in HTML? > >>>> > >>>> Is it mean that it does use only HTML module thing not Basic at > all? It > >>>> is > >>>> JS only controller? > >>>> > >>>> Piotr > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, May 6, 2018, 10:02 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Actually my whole app is broken now… :-( > >>>> > > >>>> > > On May 6, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > > > >>>> > > org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers. > ItemRendererMouseController > >>>> was > >>>> > changed to the core package as well (which also broke my app) > >>>> > > > >>>> > > I did not notice discussion about this. Why the package name > >>>> change? How > >>>> > many more changes were there like this? > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Harbs > >>>> > > > >>>> > >> On May 6, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> Why did Container become org.apache.royale.core.Container > instead > >>>> of > >>>> > org.apache.royale.html.Container? > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> Why is Container Core at all? > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> This change broke my app. While it’s not a big deal to fix > it, I > >>>> don’t > >>>> > understand why the change. Unless we decide on a wholesale > change of > >>>> > components, this seems like a gratuitous breaking change for no > good > >>>> reason. > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> Harbs > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7Ce40f3ba553f14920812308d5b376bf3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636612244963192035&sdata=nSssLK0o7uOVNnfJiNiIeMc9JLEVNP > Bq%2ByYAcle3ROc%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carlos Rovira > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7Ce40f3ba553f14920812308d5b376bf3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636612244963192035&sdata=nSssLK0o7uOVNnfJiNiIeMc9JLEVNP > Bq%2ByYAcle3ROc%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7Ce40f3ba553f14920812308d5b376bf3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636612244963192035&sdata=nSssLK0o7uOVNnfJiNiIeMc9JLEVNP > Bq%2ByYAcle3ROc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7Ce40f3ba553f14920812308d5b376bf3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636612244963192035&sdata=nSssLK0o7uOVNnfJiNiIeMc9JLEVNP > Bq%2ByYAcle3ROc%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
