Hi Yishay, I think the problem is that Basic UI set links things through CSS, so If I have Application, Group, View, Button all this components and more has CSS that links beads (ViewBeads, ModelBeads, ControllerBeads, and more)
In Jewel until the refactor the components where sublcassing Basic ones, and this made all this classes go in the Jewel Application, and that not only introduced more size but makes the behaviour unexpected since I find css styles and linked classes modifying the Jewel Behavior. Now that Jewel is not depending on Basic anymore, since it should be, all works perfect. I think this is key, in a tree graph we should envision, Core as the root of the tree, and when coming to UI sets that in royale we coincide in having many of them, one should not depend from the other. And by design that's important, and will prevent people in the future to come back to make relations between them. In fact Alex, said many times the errors coming from 15k lines of code in UIComponent in Flex. If we left UI sets depend at library level, people can start to make that kind of extension, and that should not be doable by design. 2018-05-10 7:27 GMT+02:00 yishayw <yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > Carlos Rovira-2 wrote > > This > > have many advantages, the most visible is a 40% drop off in Apps file > > size > > that uses Jewel, since Basic things that never was used are there any > > more. > > Another thing is that Basic things that could mess the intended behaviour > > in Jewel will never happen since is not present anymore. > > This is what I don't understand. Why would moving classes between packages > make a difference in app size? As I understand it, the compiler resolves > the > dependency tree without caring which packages are involved. > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/ > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
