Sorry, I am a bit late into this thread, but I like 'default' for heavy and 'lightweight' for the basic ones.
Thanks, Om On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > IMO, "Express" is the best idea so far. I also thought of "Loaded" (with > beads), "Beaded", "Quickstart". > > Peter, if you want to get started, make a folder called Express. We can > always change it later. > > -Alex > > On 1/3/17, 10:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >I think "Express" isn't a bad name for this. It implies that you can get > >something running quickly. > > > >Another name I thought of was "Star" (FlexJS Star). > > > >A third choice might be "Prime", meaning the main one to use. > > > >‹peter > > > >On 1/3/17, 12:14 PM, "Dev LFM" <developer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>I've been listening this thread, sorry my intrusion.. > >> > >>Why not simply: > >> > >>- ComponentBase for the current set without beads, and "Component" for > >>the > >>ones with default beads included? > >> > >>I like "Express" too but not making much sense to me. > >> > >>My 2 cents ^^ > >> > >>2017-01-03 16:53 GMT+00:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The original thread is another example of where PAYG becomes PITA. On > >>> another thread, Om wants to bake in HTML sanitization by default. IMO, > >>> these are things that should go in a heavier component set with more > >>> things baked in. IMO, this new, heavier component set would be the > >>> default for FlexJS. No more forgetting to add DataBinding beads, or > >>> SimpleCSSValuesImpl, etc. Fewer tags to write. > >>> > >>> I've asked Peter to start on it so you can see how to bake stuff in and > >>> how much simpler it will make our examples. I think it will help in > >>> getting folks started with fewer problems. I think we've proven that > >>>we > >>> can composite basic things into more complex things. > >>> > >>> But, we need a good name for this set. I don't like "Heavy". Makes me > >>> think it would be too fat and slow. I've ruled out for now "Kitchen > >>> Sink", and "Full" (because it won't contain every bead). I've thought > >>> about "Medium", "Typical", "Common", "Popular", "POC" (Proof of > >>>Concept)", > >>> "RP" (Rapid Prototyping). Don't like any of them. What name would > >>> suggest that it is not on the place to start but that you could use it > >>>in > >>> production if you don't run into size/performance issues? > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> -Alex > >>> > >>> On 1/2/17, 11:20 PM, "piotrz" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> >Alex, > >>> > > >>> >That's what I'm missing. It's a bit better cause when I add bead > >>> >"ItemRendererDataBinding" my getter has been fired, although binding > >>>is > >>> >still not working. I've just pushed my code. - Not sure what can be > >>> >wrong. > >>> > > >>> >I have to admit I'm still thinking to much Flex instead of FlexJS :) > >>> > > >>> >Piotr > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >----- > >>> >Apache Flex PMC > >>> >piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > >>> >-- > >>> >View this message in context: > >>> >http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble. > >>> com/FlexJS-MDL-Why-bindin > >>> >g-is-not-working-in-MDL-example-tp57738p57795.html > >>> >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at > >>>Nabble.com. > >>> > >>> > > > >
