Going along these lines: id could have the same behavior as today. localID could only apply to the mxml. globalID could only apply to the HTML and would be checked by the compiler for uniqueness.
> On May 21, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm thinking my proposal of the name globalID is better than htmlID. > Calling it globalID would allow us to use it on the SWF side too. For > instance, someone could write some kind of utility function that provides > functionality similar to document.getElementById() that works > cross-platform to return a FlexJS component. > > - Josh > > On May 21, 2017 8:44 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The more I think about it, the more I think we should keep the semantics of > id MXML-centric. It should create a member variable on the class like it > always has, but it should not set the id on the HTML element. Instead, we > should add a separate property for the HTML element's id. Maybe htmlID, > maybe globalID. > > Let's not change a core behavior of id in the MXML language. MXML id has > been established to mean something in Flex (and Feathers too!) for over a > decade. Let's not break that without a better reason. An MXML file will > mostly contain high level components, rather than wrappers for specific > HTML elements (even if there are some), so I think it's fair to expect > developers to think in a different context for MXML and understand that id > in MXML doesn't translate to id in HTML. > > - Josh > > On May 21, 2017 7:58 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > On 5/21/17, 1:38 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I like the idea. Sencha follows a similar pattern as far as I remember. I >> don't like mxmlID. Everything in MXML is MXML. I would go with 'localId', >> for the one that doesn't translate to HTML, and 'id' for the one that >> does. >> Also, there's nothing preventing an AS3 class from accessing the so called >> 'mxmlID'. > > I don't care too much what we call this property, but I cannot think of a > scenario where someone would write 'mxmlID' from an AS3 class. Instead, I > think you will always access the referenced object by its assigned name. > IOW: > > ---- Foo.mxml ---- > <SomeBaseClass> > <SomeClass mxmlID="bar" someProperty="baz" /> > </SomeBaseClass> > > > > Means that you will write "bar.someProperty". In fact, it might be > possible for "mxmlID" or "localID" to be a pseudo-property and not > actually a property on the object. We already do this for "includeIn" and > "excludeFrom" in states. These properties are truly MXML-only and not > ever set on the object. > > If we want to be more descriptive, we could call it "documentID" or even > "documentVariableName" or "mxmlDocumentVariableName" which is actually > what it does. > > Thoughts? > -Alex
