> I only what to said at this regard, that I expect, as we have alll things > working and think about release 1.0, that before that release, is very > normal to change packages and names right?
No. I disagree with this. We are at the point where people are using Royale in production. While we can make breaking changes if they are warranted, they should be kept to an absolute minimum and be carefully considered and well documented if we do. My $0.02, Harbs > On May 17, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Harbs, > > ok, as I said, package names are not something crucial. It's only something > we can put back to their old names. > I only what to said at this regard, that I expect, as we have alll things > working and think about release 1.0, that before that release, is very > normal to change packages and names right? (maybe our most near examples > where Flex releases from beta codenames to final i.e: Jumbo to Flex 4.0, > many changes where done by Adobe that broke existing applications, but that > was nothing people will think was bad, since they prefer a better names and > organization for the major release and to follow in the future) > > If you finally, with all that said, want me to change packages to all way, > I can do that. As I stated, this is not crucial, only library place is > (Basic to Core). > > thanks > > > > 2018-05-17 10:10 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Carlos, >> >> The problem is that any existing applications which subclass or import >> DataGroup (for example) will break by upgrading to 0.9.3. We don’t want >> release breaking changes unless we decide that breaking changes are >> necessary. >> >> We are still discussing that whole topic and this release will likely >> happen before that discussion is finished. >> >> IMO, it’s better to release less features than release breaking changes >> which might be reverted. >> >> Thanks, >> Harbs >> >>> On May 17, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira
