On 3/1/16, 2:45 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> That's a valid approach as well, but probably has the overhead of >>wrapping >> a lot of their classes to conform to IUIBase. > > >Do you mean work overhead? That would be a one time thing, right? >Or runtime overhead? I doubt if porting over stuff to conform IUIBase >would >cause runtime overhead... Well, if you have to wrap things, I suppose there is at least some runtime overhead, but I was mainly referring to framework developer effort required to implement the APIs and patterns expected in IUIBase. The addChild/addElement thing is probably painful and could be confusing to existing developers. The other thing they would get, though is swappability. If they wrap enough of Feathers so there is a close match of the existing FlexJS UI widget APIs, then folks can swap in the Feathers set more easily. I would love to see someone try it so we understand the costs. -Alex
