Hi Harbs 2018-05-21 18:35 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> 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. > I think this is our major point of disagreement. In my mind UI sets are interchangeable pieces. When you start a royale App you choose one of them, If you want to mix, you want to choose more of them, is your responsibility. But doing the following tree: Core -> Basic -> Jewel, seems strange to me since Jewel needs core pieces but no Basic pieces. If Jewel need a piece that is now in Basic, most probably will be that piece is Core or is not still elaborated in its final state to be a reusable piece. Other scenarios more flexible and more suitable for me could be Core -> Jewel and Core -> Basic, or Core -> Beads (and maybe other components that while are not core are not of any concrete UI Set) and then Beads -> Basic and Beads -> Jewel. I as well talk various times of other technical advantages of separating UI sets, for me one clear is that we'll be more confident that doing a new major version will be very easy for us and as well our users will be glad to not having to deal with a major update mixed with the actual code. That's a huge benefit. The major reason is what I already commented: "libraries with resources that wire beads through CSS should not be obligated to be linked in any application. That should be something to be choose by Application developers" (despite existing bugs will be fixed) > > or do you like more TextPromptBead than TextPrompt? > > > I actually prefer dropping the word Bead, although I think consistency is > important. > Well, consistency should come in 1.0. Is very normal in software to make a final adjustment before 1.0. Then we'll need to have a huge point to change something. But If we'll propose a poll I think we should find that 1) very few users will respond to the poll, since we are still very few, and 2) most user will not have problems with this cause of 1) and cause in most cases they are testing some things in royale at the moment, and 3) I'm pretty sure that they will understand that we are in 0.9x version and is what they can expect right now. > > 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… ;-) > I think that is legit, but I think you should have in mind that people can be confused about different names one for mxml and one in code... Thanks > > 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 > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
