Hi Harbs,
complety true. I think this is, at least for what I can see about my
investigations, the most flexible way. And this is nothing new, I borrowed
it from Semantic UI set, and for now it seems to work flawlessly :)
Thanks
Carlos
2018-05-15 13:26 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> This makes sense. I liked the way you used style composition in Jewel to
> piece together functionality. It’s very elegant.
>
> The only thing I would comment is that we can still use prefixing to
> prevent conflicts: "jewel jewel-Button primary" or “jewel jewel-Button
> emphasized”.
>
> It seems to me like your comments bring to light a third option along the
> lines of what I was saying:
>
> Instead of:
> .basic-FooComponent{
> /*some styling*/
> }
> We could have:
> .basic.FooComponent{
> /*some styling*/
> }
> and:
> .jewel.FooComponent{
> /*some styling*/
> }
>
> And the basic typenames could be: “basic FooComponent”. Jewel typename
> would be “jewel FooComponent”, etc. I think this would work as long as all
> compiled css always uses combined class selectors using prefixes.
>
> I don’t see a downside to this idea. It seems like it should allow for
> separation of component sets while offering even more flexibility. There’s
> no reason why someone (on the application level) could not decide to set
> styling across *all* component sets by then using
> .FooComponent{
> */some more styling*/
> }.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Harbs
>
> > On May 15, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Point #2 starts down the path of possible solutions.
> >> The two relatively simple (I think) solutions I see (which have been
> >> touched on already) are:
> >> 1. Fully qualifying the typenames (i.e. "org-apache-royale-html-Button"
> >> instead of “Button”.) It seems like org.apache.royale.html.Button can
> work
> >> too, but the period needs to be escaped in the css file (i.e.
> >> org\.apache\.royale\.html\.Button)
> >> 2. Prefixing the typenames (i.e. basic-Button instead of Button).
> >>
> >>
> > I choose "jewel button" since is the same "Semantic" do instead
> > "jewel-button". The reason is that seems more flexible when you are
> nesting
> > things. So making things like "jewel" we can change all jewel things and
> > the by component we do (ie. for Button) : "jewel button primary" or
> "jewel
> > button emphasized"...and so on...
> >
> >
> >> I like solution 2 better because having such long classnames is “ugly”,
> >> but solution 2 would require some kind of lookup for the compiler to
> know
> >> the correct prefix to use.
> >>
> >
> > Right, is the one I choose (just with the difference of the "-" to be
> more
> > flexible)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Are there reasons I’m missing why these solutions will not
> work?
> >>
> >
> > Perfectly, I think for example you want to join j|Button with "jewel
> > button" to get all in "jewel button" right?
> > I think the benefit from this will be the possibility to remove css if
> the
> > concrete component is not present.
> > So good.
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
