It would be good to have two-way binding working with -> @ - I've just raised
a jira [1]
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35298
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Two-
I will try to look at it this coming weekend. I have some looming deadlines
with work at the moment that could cause me to end up not having much spare
time :)
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:13 PM, piotrz wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Any chance that you look into that before 0.8 release?
>
> Thanks,
> Piot
Hi,
> And I committed this file to our repo. Would you still insist that it is
> a derivative work?
It probably depends on how it was generated. That why some people go to large
efforts to make cleanroom implementing without even looking at the original
code.
> If I write a book about Create
Hi Greg,
Any chance that you look into that before 0.8 release?
Thanks,
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Issue-with-JSON-stringify-and-Bindable-VO-objects-tp61195p61364.html
Sent
On 4/25/17, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it
>
>Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be
>relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under.
Again, you assuming this is a derivative work. Let
Hi,
> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it
Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be
relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under.
INAL and Adobe may own the copyright on the patch, but if it's considered just
a list as you say then t
On 4/25/17, 9:30 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>Alex,
>
>It sounds like we will be fine either way. If Justin makes this fix, will
>you veto the commit?
If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it, I will have to spend
the time and energy to check with A
On Apr 25, 2017 9:08 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
On 4/25/17, 7:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Justin, which file(s) are you talking about? What is the problem and
>>what
>> is your proposed solution?
>
>
>The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms
>and b) no
On 4/25/17, 7:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Justin, which file(s) are you talking about? What is the problem and
>>what
>> is your proposed solution?
>
>
>The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms
>and b) not following ASF policy re 3rd party headers
>
>
On 4/25/17, 2:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>Ok seems my fix just made things generally work again, but yours would
>have been correct.
>
>If you are building it on the console, you should probably just type
>“yes” and hit enter. If you are running a CI build, you need to provide
Hi,
> Justin, which file(s) are you talking about? What is the problem and what
> is your proposed solution?
The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms and b)
not following ASF policy re 3rd party headers
For the CreateJS file IMO the solution would be re not remo
On Apr 25, 2017 3:52 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
Hi,
> Adobe would certainly be able to relicense that one and remove the header.
Perhaps - but that would most likely depend on the contract Adobe had with
Mike Chambers (assuming he's the original author) at the time or if non
Adobe people had co
Hi,
> Adobe would certainly be able to relicense that one and remove the header.
Perhaps - but that would most likely depend on the contract Adobe had with Mike
Chambers (assuming he's the original author) at the time or if non Adobe people
had contributed to that code on GitHub. It’s not alway
I guess we're talking about different things. Sorry for the noise. I
thought you were talking about this MD5 class that you said was third party
in an earlier email.
> The code original comes from a 3rd party and is BSD licensed [1]
> 1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/blob/
> master/s
Hi,
> I'm confused. Who is the third party?
In this case TweenJS copyright Grant Skinner whose original code is under a MIT
license. [1] The patch file [2] (copyright Adobe) removes the header containing
the MIT license from his code.
Again I’ll point out by leaving the header in there is at w
Hi,
> Can you post link to your question or it is something private ?
Sure here you go.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d81b86622a8069806bc00c0ba2bf8174559e3043a2940a6bb592215@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
Thanks,
Justin
I'm confused. Who is the third party?
- Josh
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If Adobe owns the copyright, then Adobe can relicense the code in any way
> > that they want.
>
> I believe It's a bit more nuanced than that.
>
> For instance. If I take 3rd party cod
Hi Justin,
Can you post link to your question or it is something private ?
Thanks,
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/LAST-CALL-Release-FlexJS-FalconJX-0-8-0-tp61275p61350.html
Sent from t
Hi,
> If Adobe owns the copyright, then Adobe can relicense the code in any way
> that they want.
I believe It's a bit more nuanced than that.
For instance. If I take 3rd party code and make changes to it, the changes are
under my copyright (unless I give that up), but that doesn't allow me to
Hi Alex,
Ok seems my fix just made things generally work again, but yours would have
been correct.
If you are building it on the console, you should probably just type “yes” and
hit enter. If you are running a CI build, you need to provide the … I just gave
it a spin with a completely empty m
If Adobe owns the copyright, then Adobe can relicense the code in any way
that they want.
- Josh
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Again, everything I contribute is copyright Adobe and I am authorized to
> > license it under ALv2. So I think we are good.
>
> Whi
On 4/25/17, 12:35 PM, "Peter Ent" wrote:
>Perhaps I am not understanding this.
>
>You create a control component extending UIBase. You create your view bead
>extending AbsolutePositioningViewBase. This bead makes sure that the
>strand/host has position:relative set.
>
>So how do you set positio
Hi,
> Again, everything I contribute is copyright Adobe and I am authorized to
> license it under ALv2. So I think we are good.
Which is fine, but that does not give you the right to relicense code unless
the original license allows for that.
I’ll ask on legal discuss to clarify what to do her
On 4/25/17, 1:33 PM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>Ok seems the html module no longer had a basic-as-manifest.xml file
>inside. I adjusted the deployment descriptor and now the distribution
>build worked again.
Right, that file got moved to Basic. See the patch I proposed in [1].
Unfo
Hi Alex,
Ok seems the html module no longer had a basic-as-manifest.xml file inside. I
adjusted the deployment descriptor and now the distribution build worked again.
Chris
Am 25.04.17, 16:26 schrieb "Alex Harui" :
On 4/25/17, 2:28 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>I’ll loo
Perhaps I am not understanding this.
You create a control component extending UIBase. You create your view bead
extending AbsolutePositioningViewBase. This bead makes sure that the
strand/host has position:relative set.
So how do you set position:absolute on each of the control's parts?
Setting p
If AbsolutePositioningViewBase is for creating controls it sounds like a good
idea. Answers my previous post.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Layouts-tp61120p61341.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nab
On 4/25/17, 10:55 AM, "yishayw" wrote:
>App devs may want to write custom controls and would expect flash and js
>behaviour to be the same. I think we should strive to eliminate use of
>conditional compilation for app devs. If that's so we don't want them
>changing an HTML only style (position)
App devs may want to write custom controls and would expect flash and js
behaviour to be the same. I think we should strive to eliminate use of
conditional compilation for app devs. If that's so we don't want them
changing an HTML only style (position).
--
View this message in context:
http://a
More thinking on this.
Some Containers have both assignable children and assignable layout, where
"assignable" means the application developer gets to decide on the
children and layout.
Controls should not have assignable children, but may have assignable
layout. List, DataGrid can have differen
IMO, in FlexJS we want to make a distinction between Containers and
Controls.
Containers can contain arbitrary sets of children determined by the app
logic and have a layout. I'm still leaning towards renaming Group to
Container and make Container be called something like
ContainerWithViewport, b
Again, everything I contribute is copyright Adobe and I am authorized to
license it under ALv2. So I think we are good.
Do any other PMC members think we need to spend more energy on this issue?
There are lots of other things to do.
-Alex
On 4/24/17, 7:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>
And after waiting through a few more downloads, it failed on not finding
those very artifacts I thought I'd downloaded [1]. So help is definitely
appreciated.
Thanks,
-Alex
[1] https://paste.apache.org/63fo
On 4/25/17, 7:26 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>On 4/25/17, 2:28 AM, "Christofer Dutz"
On 4/25/17, 2:28 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>I’ll look into this …
Thanks, that would be helpful. I'm having trouble getting the commands
below to do something reasonable.
I believe the changes required are in this patch [1], but when trying to
run the commands below, it keeps saying that
The x and y properties in Flash are always relative to their parent
container. The browser world is, well I'll just say "complex" and leave it
at that.
If you do position:relative then x (left) and y (top) become positions
relative to the nearest element in the "flow" the browser lays down. That
i
Peter Ent wrote
> I first encourage you to base any new components on Group and then add in
> BasicLayout. Nothing will happen until you dispatch a layout needed event.
> You should be able to add multiple children and then dispatch the event.
That's what I'm doing right now.
> We could also mak
This is still a little bit of a conundrum. Automatically setting
position:absolute when setting x and y (effectively left and top styles)
runs into several problems as you can imagine.
One issue is that you have to make sure the parent container's position is
either relative or absolute, otherwise
Also, what if I'm adding elements to a UIBase (no layout)? Shouldn't I be
able to set the absolute x and y on the added element?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Layouts-tp61120p61330.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing
After having another look, BasicLayout loops over its children and sets their
positions to absolute. The problem with that is it requires a
dispatchEvent('layoutNeeded') every time I add an item, which is expensive.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabb
I’ll look into this …
Am 25.04.17, 00:08 schrieb "piotrz" :
Alex,
Another one is with maven. Distribution options for FlexJS maven build is
failing on dual [1].
Command: -s settings-template.xml -Drat.skip=true
-DdistributionTargetFolder=distribution-flexjs -P build
Hi Peter,
I noticed setting UIBase.x no longer changes positioning to absolute. This
probably makes sense because it was a strong side effect which could be
counter-intuitive, but what's the method for setting items absolutely now? I
searched the code base but couldn't find anywhere position in se
Hi Alex,
I just checked it and example is working, but still building framework
distribution by maven is failing.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/LAST-CALL-Release-FlexJS-FalconJX-0-8-0
42 matches
Mail list logo
