Carlos, Those changes were not properly discussed. Let's wait till the end of the discussion and proper fix. I personally prefer wait even another month than release something what can change significantly.
Is that make sense to others ? Thanks, Piotr 2018-05-17 10:26 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > Hi, > > just find the imports with problems, fix them and committed. If there's no > others this should fix the release. > > If you see the commit, the changes are easy, and no more of some secs to do > for our users, in case they use this core classes. > > Let's see what Jenkins reports in the following build > > > 2018-05-17 10:16 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > I think we are getting sufficient progress I the discussion thread to > > still think about a revert. I'm most for change things from this point, > > that should be the normal way from 0.9.2 to 1.0. We can as well hold a > bit > > the release until we have cleared all this. As I said, if we revert, and > > release 0.9.3 with old code, blog examples will not work at all, and that > > will suppose lots of people in the internet trying us and failing. > > > > Think that: > > > > 1) There's no breaking changes at all about functionality > > 2) The change was only: > > a) move things from Basic to Core > > b) rename packages on some of that 2.a) things > > > > > > So the real problem now for me is 2.b) and that's the reason why jsonly > > build is failing, since we have things in framework with not examples > > referencing it, and since SWCs does not validate CSS beads, when used > that > > CSS in final app that fails. I think that's for me a major problem, and > > will prefer to focus in find that code and fixing it. > > > > I'm trying to focus this morning on doing this, and hope to fix on that > > way jsonly > > > > > > 2018-05-17 10:08 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > > > >> It's not about the minor changes in his app in my opinion. In the result > >> of > >> the discussion it may end up that you will revert everything and > solution > >> will be completely different. What will be the experience of the created > >> app on the user sight ? > >> > >> 2018-05-17 10:05 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > >> > >> > Hi Harbs, > >> > > >> > that was returned to the old way, actually we have the same than > before > >> > refactor: > >> > > >> > import org.apache.royale.html.Group; > >> > > >> > public class NodeElementBase extends Group > >> > > >> > Maybe the problem is that we don't have any example of ButtonBar in > >> > examples? and thus I was not aware of that concrete component? > >> > > >> > I'll try to see that and if we need, I'll create and example now for > >> that. > >> > > >> > The change to solve this in your code base is really easy and direct: > >> > > >> > search all "import org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.DataGroup;" > >> and > >> > replace with "import org.apache.royale.core.DataGroup;" > >> > > >> > (for me is clear that DataGroup is a Core piece, that will be used not > >> as > >> > Basic or Jewel implementation, but as a "core" piece used for the rest > >> of > >> > UI sets) > >> > > >> > I'll be looking at it right now > >> > > >> > Thanks for exposing it! :) > >> > > >> > Carlos > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2018-05-17 8:49 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > > Having trouble getting this email to “take”. Trying a paste link > >> > instead... > >> > > > >> > > It looks like it does have issues. > >> > > > >> > > I just pulled the 0.9.3 branch. > >> > > > >> > > I get a lot of these warnings when I compile the framework: > >> > > https://paste.apache.org/Wy9t <https://paste.apache.org/Wy9t> > >> > > > >> > > I used it to compile my app, and I get runtime errors due to missing > >> > > components. This seems to be due to HTML not subclassing Group. > >> > > > >> > > Here’s an example of elements which go AWAL: > >> > > https://paste.apache.org/s9og <https://paste.apache.org/s9og> > >> > > > >> > > Everything below “ul" is missing. > >> > > > >> > > Harbs > >> > > > >> > > > On May 16, 2018, at 10:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID > >> > > <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm pretty sure the branches were cut before the changes in > >> question. > >> > > You can pull down the branches and build them to verify. Or look at > >> > their > >> > > history on GitHub. > >> > > > > >> > > > Om, did you see a date for when Maven SCM would be released? The > >> only > >> > > response I got from the Maven folks was to build Maven SCM from > >> sources. > >> > > If it is going to be more than a week, I might actually try that. > >> > > > > >> > > > -Alex > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Carlos Rovira > >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Piotr Zarzycki > >> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
