Hi Peter, Alex, I'm with you in that concept, but to be real Basic should be really an agnostic UI set and not needed always. And that was that happen before the refactor I did. So Maybe the problem is just about to refactor some classes to use interfaces instead of specific implementations. I think we can have all, to have a real core library, and to make Basic, Jewel, and other UI sets siblings and doesn't need one to the other by default (that should be a decision of the user to mix them).
For example, we had UIBase part of Basic until I refactored to Core some days ago...I think we all agree that was needed, but as well there's a "core" package with in Basic that had many Core functionality, I only refactored what needed to make the actual separation. Maybe we need an intermediate library between Core and the rest of UI sets... don't know. I think Alex and you know build that so maybe you know better than me the changes to be made, and as we talked in the last weeks, we still needed some changes to be made in some parts like you and Alex suggested (maybe each of you know what want to improve). What I really need with this change is not to depend from Basic. I get to that way with this refactor, maybe it should be refined to make all concepts we all want, and can't be a work of what I did, maybe a team work between us. Thanks Carlos 2018-05-07 17:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Ent <pentapacheroy...@gmail.com>: > I agree, to some extent, with Alex on this. One of the reasons I played > around with the Simple project was that I thought Core was pretty much good > as-is. I thought IUIBase needed some more stuff, but Core is pretty > universal. As such, I was able to build a new framework on top of it (with > the minor changes). If you move things like ContainerBase into it, it makes > Core less adaptable to future ideas. > > For me, the real power of Royale is the compiler + Core. With that, you > can go in many directions. Plus, if one day there is an ActionScript to > Swift or ActionScript to WebAssembly, you would want Core to be as > universal as possible. > > I strongly urge you to keep Core as agnostic as possible. Or make > something underneath it. > > —peter > > > On May 7, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I don't think Container is universal. ContainerBase might be. > > ItemRendererMouseController and DataItemRenderer? Not sure. > > > > 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. > > > > My 2 cents, > > -Alex > > > > On 5/6/18, 10:28 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com <mailto: > carlos.rov...@gmail.com> on behalf of Carlos Rovira" < > carlos.rov...@gmail.com <mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com> on behalf of > carlosrov...@apache.org <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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
