Harbs, I think your proposal is the same like putting classes on Core and left Basic with components. In your proposal people will need to link Core+Basic and people using basic components will link BasicComponents. but that's the same that I did just that Core is like Core+Basic, if we think that what I put from Basic into Core was really core, that was gran part of the conversations with Alex through this weeks.
I think we'll get less headaches if we have only Core than split into two, since if folks needs all those classes, they'll need to link all...and so that's fits better for me under the name "Core". 2018-05-10 13:47 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > FWIW, If you were proposing to pull the Basic components out into a > separate swc instead of moving the building blocks into Core, that would > make more sense to me. > > (i.e. We could have Basic.swc which would be the building block and > BasicComponents.swc which would contain just the actual components (i..e > Button, Label, List etc.) The conflicting CSS would go in there.) > > As I mentioned I think the CSS problem is something which needs to be > solved independent of the refactor. > > My $0.02, > Harbs > > > On May 10, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > Thank you for summarizing your reasons. I appreciate it. > > > > Please allow me to categorize your reasons. Please let me know if I’m > not categorizing them correctly. > > > > When I mentioned reason #1, I think it includes: > > #3, #5 and #7 > > > > #2 AFAICT includes #4. As I mentioned the fact that there can be > conflicting typenames is a problem. Removing Basic as a dependency will not > solve that problem because clients can (and likely will) bring in Basic as > part of their application. > > > > I really don’t understand your point with #6. Why do application > developers need to think about dependencies? Is it because of Maven > dependencies? If so, that seems to be a Maven problem which should be fixed > there. > > > > Please explain why you think $8 is true. What about the refactoring will > reduce the size of applications? > > > > As I mentioned earlier, Basic is not simply a component set. It’s also a > set of building-blocks which can and should be used in other component > sets. Devision between Core and Basic is not as clear-cut as you seem to be > asserting that it is. After your refactor the building blocks seem to be > split between Core and Basic. > > > > Thanks, > > Harbs > > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Harbs > >> > >> after 75 emails on this thread, understand that I don't want to again > write > >> it, since this is making me waste lots of time in this discussion. > >> > >> 3) Having the need to link a library that should not be used, is that > >> something is wrong, so it's not about 1) it's about things are not > setting > >> correctly, and this refactor tries to fix that at least to put a point > in > >> wich we can make things better. > >> 4) aside 2, some classes are linked via CSS as well (Application, Group, > >> Container, Button, Slider, and many more > >> 5) Having Basic to be a core dependency, makes it Core in itself, so why > >> the separation Core- Basic if I'm obligated to link it? > >> 6) Making Basic not present in libraries that doesn't need it, makes > people > >> obligated by design to avoid extend Basic classes making the effect but > >> time that things mess between libraries, and obligates SDK developers to > >> think about the using of classes, since if we need some, maybe that > will be > >> Core and not Basic > >> 7) Basic is only another UI set at the same level or sibling like Jewel, > >> MDL, CreateJS, Flat, and more we want to do, until now was very needed, > but > >> if we want to make Royale to serve general purpose, making it to be > present > >> always is not the right way to go. > >> 8) reduced size in final jewel applications. > >> > >> I think for sure I put more things on the plate, but can't invest now > the > >> time to go all 75 emails to retrieve it > >> > >> > >> > >> 2018-05-10 12:48 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> The only reasons I seem to have seen are: > >>> 1. A philosophical opposition to having Basic as a dependency. > >>> 2. Not wanting Basic CSS included in a Jewel project. > >>> > >>> Unless I’m missing something, #1 I simply disagree with. > >>> #2 sounds like a valid argument, but it seems to me more like something > >>> which needs to be fixed in the compiler. CSS not used by an app should > not > >>> be included and I think we need a way of avoiding typename conflicts > >>> between component sets. > >>> > >>> Are there other arguments which I missed? > >>> > >>> Since Carlos does not seem to want to explain himself again, I’m asking > >>> others on the list: > >>> > >>> Do others understand why Carlos feels the refactor is important? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Harbs > >>> > >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Can we please keep this discussion about the technical reasons for a > >>>>> refactor and whether or not it’s the right thing to do? If you have > >>> strong > >>>>> technical reasons why Basic should not be a dependency please explain > >>> them. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Harbs, I'll explained lots of time, and you keep ask the same. What > did > >>> you > >>>> not understand of the things I expressed so many time? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carlos Rovira > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
