This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. Harbs
> On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is willing > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most of > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes related > to this. > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > them in reply to this thread. > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) the > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI interfaces > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might want > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the Flex > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > other reasons they might have. > > What impact will it have on me? > *Royale User:* > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it will > continue to work as it has before. > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) in > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make things > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have to > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > *Royale Developer:* > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective is > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > MXRoyale. > > > Thanks, > Greg
