No. Just referencing the Jewel TextPrompt would bring in the class. As long as the Basic swc is available, it’ll just work. Assuming any piece of Jewel uses Basic, I think Basic should be declared as a dependency by Jewel in Maven. With other build types, the swc should always be available. Only the actual class used should be imported into the app, so that’s not a problem.
> or do you like more TextPromptBead than TextPrompt? I actually prefer dropping the word Bead, although I think consistency is important. FWIW, I’ve done a few beads where the component name is different than the class name. One example is <js:ApplicationParameters> where the class name is org.apache.royale.html.beads.ApplicationParametersBead. I don’t know if this a good idea but it’s what I did… ;-) Harbs > On May 21, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Ok, that's good point. > > But, if users need to refer it in code they will need to import the full > package rute plus TextPromptBead right? > This could be very confusing right? It's only a suggestion (I think is > good)? or do you like more TextPromptBead than TextPrompt? > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > 2018-05-21 17:44 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > >> Commenting on this one item (before I respond to the rest). >> >> If all you want to do is add <j:TextPrompt>, you can do this: >> >> <component id="TextPrompt" >> class="org.apache.royale.html.accessories.TextPromptBead" >> lookupOnly="true" /> >> >> Express does this a lot. >> >> Harbs >> >>> On May 21, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> In the other hand as I notice before, we can use this to refactor >> packages >>> and names. Before I mention the convenience to reduce names. >>> <beads> >>> <js:TextPrompt/> >>> >>> seems less verbose, more elegant and equally efective than >>> >>> <beads> >>> <js:TextPromptBead/> >>> >>> right? >> >> > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira
