Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #804

See -- [...truncated 1.77 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on org.apache.royale.html.List [mxmlc]

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #803

See -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on org.apache.royale.html.List [mxmlc]

Re: 0.9.3 Release

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > Update: I’ve been trying to get the release script to work on Windows > with Powershell. I didn’t have to go through the links Om used. It just > worked for me, but I’ve been getting other failures that I’ve been cleaning > up. Annoyingly,

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #802

See Changes: [carlosrovira] example passing a "flex.messaging.io.ArrayCollection" to -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royal

Re: Terminology and Concepts (was Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes)

For others who are maybe also a bit lost like me, maybe this helps: - This is the wiki page [1] - TLCs = Top-Level-Components Olaf [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Terminology-and-Concepts -- Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #801

See Changes: [carlosrovira] fix manualtest and hopefully royale_asjs build -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.But

Re: Terminology and Concepts (was Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes)

Very interesting Alex, I think this is not working now in Jewel now, but we should get to it. Maybe that would need even to take into account the SWF version that I'm not focusing, as I get some time I'll try to see what is missing and try to make this work thanks Carlos 2018-05-15 17:40 GMT+

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #800

See Changes: [carlosrovira] Fix RemoteObject deserialization when objects in server has more [carlosrovira] better left RemoteObject example compile in debug so make more easy to [

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

The goal of typenames is to do the best job we can of emulating Type Selectors. I understand it isn't perfect, but the browser does have Type Selectors and we can't really stop people from expecting Type Selectors to work, and wishing it would work on the rest of Royale. On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM,

Terminology and Concepts (was Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes)

Renaming to separate feedback on the wiki page. One comment inline below. On 5/15/18, 3:17 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" wrote: * Exploded Component:This should be really great, but I think in components and I think is difficult for most of them. Think in a

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Makes sense, but there’s two problems with that: 1. That makes the assumption that components of a specific name implement the HTML component of the same name. 2. Classes take precedence over element selectors, so that styling is too easily overridden. > On May 15, 2018, at 6:11 PM, Alex Harui

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Certain typenames match up against HTMLElement names and are thus valid Type selectors so are not transformed into Class Selectors. -Alex On 5/15/18, 2:09 AM, "Harbs" wrote: Interesting. It looks to me like a bug. The theme CSS compiles into this: Button { border

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Hi Harbs, complety true. I think this is, at least for what I can see about my investigations, the most flexible way. And this is nothing new, I borrowed it from Semantic UI set, and for now it seems to work flawlessly :) Thanks Carlos 2018-05-15 13:26 GMT+02:00 Harbs : > This makes sense. I

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #799

See -- [...truncated 1.80 MB...] [mxmlc] C:/Program Files (x86)/Jenkins/workspace/royale-asjs_jsonly/mustella/tests/basicTests/bin/js-debug/org/apache/r

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

This makes sense. I liked the way you used style composition in Jewel to piece together functionality. It’s very elegant. The only thing I would comment is that we can still use prefixing to prevent conflicts: "jewel jewel-Button primary" or “jewel jewel-Button emphasized”. It seems to me like

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

OK. Great! It looks like we’re agreeing on these points too. (It seems like I was right that we agree on most points) :-) To add a bit of clarity: We are using (some) MDL in our app, and we had requirements to modify the default MDL styling. I found this very difficult to do and I ended up mes

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Right, we solved many bugs the last month like this. It was already one or two that was not clearly fixed or not, since the test Alex did worked by when I tried to use wasn't. Don't remember if this was one of them. Please check the issues, and see if it relates to some open CSS bug. I think the on

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

2018-05-15 10:52 GMT+02:00 Harbs : > Excellent! I think we’re finally on the same page. :-) > > We agree that j|Button would theoretically be better, but we are unsure > whether we can practically achieve that goal in a manner that would be > acceptable. It might be that the current solution is th

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Hi Alex, great document. I read it all and think it's very clear and of great help. Some points I notice: * In Subclassing when you talk about "final". I think like you, and maybe you talk about that so I mentioned. a TLC can be extended but use to be for aggregation of specialization purposes. W

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Interesting. It looks to me like a bug. The theme CSS compiles into this: Button { border: 1px solid #808080; padding: 4px; background-color: #f8f8f8; margin: 0px; border-radius: 2px; } Button:hover { border: 1px solid #808080; padding: 4px;

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

Excellent! I think we’re finally on the same page. :-) We agree that j|Button would theoretically be better, but we are unsure whether we can practically achieve that goal in a manner that would be acceptable. It might be that the current solution is the best we can do with all things considere

Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes

> I'm finding this thread to be hard to follow. Agreed. There are many different points and things have gotten quite confusing. That’s why I’m trying to concentrate on one issue at a time. That should enable us to take things in bite size pieces. I think it has been successful so far. I feel th