Carlos,

It would be great to get that report from your application!

Thanks, Piotr

2018-02-22 18:17 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> Your point of view is valid, but it might depend on the kind of
> application.  Some might have 100's of views to port, others might only
> have 2 or 3 views and a million lines of business logic.
>
> In another thread I mentioned the -api-report option I added.  It would be
> interesting for folks to try getting API reports on their Flex apps so we
> can see what folks are using so we can use that in making decisions.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 2/22/18, 8:39 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Without know nothing about the solution I want to share a though: I think
> >the implementation of all the things related to visuals (and css is one of
> >them) is completely different in Royale to what it was in flex, so maybe
> >we
> >should not be worried that CSS is not following main flex rules.
> >For me UX in royale must be done from scratch, if someone is migrating, we
> >can only provide some basic *structure* similar to what Flex was. But
> >that's only some kind of guide and could mean around 5-10% of what they
> >must to migrate. So this is the opposite to things more related to
> >"business" (like the ArrayCollection disscussion we made some days ago),
> >in
> >this case, there's very few to save from a flex codebase point of view,
> >and
> >CSS is one of the things I don't expect to reuse if I come from flex
> >codebase.
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-02-22 17:27 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >
> >> Well, it might be a migration issue in the sense that you could use a
> >> selector called "global" in Flex and it would become the default value
> >>for
> >> styles.
> >>
> >> Flex and Royale CSS has non-compliant CSS in it like "cffHinting" or
> >> "focusSkin" in Flex or "IStatesImpl" in Royale.  Non-compliant styles
> >>are
> >> not emitted to the final .css file since the browser has no use for
> >>them,
> >> but are kept in a data structure used by ValuesManager.  If you use
> >> "global" for non-compliant style properties, it will work in Royale like
> >> it did in Flex, but if you use "global" to try to set the fontFamily to
> >> Gothic everywhere in your app it will not work in Royale as it did in
> >>Flex.
> >>
> >> Until this change we renamed "global" in the final CSS to "*" so it
> >>would
> >> have a more global effect, but I took that out because I'm not sure that
> >> "*" is the equivalent since "*" actually has precedence over Type
> >> Selectors.  I'm not quite sure how to create the true equivalent of Flex
> >> global styles.
> >>
> >> We could rename what I'm currently calling "global" in Royale to
> >>something
> >> else like "royale" and go back to renaming "global" to "*", but I think
> >> that will end up with complaints.  I think it might be right for the
> >> migration docs to mention this and offer alternatives like moving some
> >> styles from global to "*" if they understand the impact of doing so.
> >> Also, everything is currently a child of the Application so setting
> >> Application styles should have a global effect, but I think both will
> >> still override type selectors.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 2/22/18, 7:44 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>Rovira"
> >> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Andrew, this is new for Apache Royale since is how to deal with CSS
> >>and
> >> >how browsers manage it.
> >> >So maybe not much relation with Flex in this case
> >> >
> >> >Best
> >> >
> >> >Carlos
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >2018-02-22 13:27 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Is this a migration issue for Flex apps, or is this specific to
> >>Royale?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Alex Harui
> >><aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 2/22/18, 1:12 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >> >> Rovira"
> >> >> > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >Hi Alex,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I think this is a very good change since I had many problems with
> >>MDL
> >> >> and
> >> >> > >have to use the exclusion on CSS to make it work properly.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >If I understand ok, I should see fonts at 16px, that I think is
> >> >>nowadays
> >> >> > >the standard for "normal" text, so good.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >What I don't understand is what basic should making any change.
> >>From
> >> >>my
> >> >> > >point of view basic is as the name says...basic, and I don't like
> >>to
> >> >> make
> >> >> > >fonts 12px.
> >> >> > >I only expect in basic to see the wiring of beads like views,
> >>models
> >> >>and
> >> >> > >controllers. But I think almost no CSS rules should be there,
> >>hence
> >> >>the
> >> >> > >basic point at the lowest level, where users only have the basics
> >>of
> >> >> what
> >> >> > >royale provides without any customization.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >That's how I see it
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think I agree.  That's sort of where I was heading by creating a
> >> >> > separate theme in basic.css.  Basic.css is separate from the
> >> >>defaults.css
> >> >> > in Basic.swc.  Maybe we should give basic.css a different name.
> >>The
> >> >>goal
> >> >> > of basic.css was to give our examples and anybody else building the
> >> >> > smallest app on Basic a more Flex-like look.  I just don't think
> >>Serif
> >> >> > 16px looks good.  It is true that more traditional CSS visual
> >>styles
> >> >>can
> >> >> > be moved from the Basic defaults.css to whatever we call basic.css.
> >> >> > Someone else can do that work once we see how this change affects
> >> >>Vivid
> >> >> > and other themes like MDL.  I'm not sure if every component set
> >>should
> >> >> > have a separate theme file or SWC as well.  Or if there are a few
> >> >>visual
> >> >> > styles in that should remain in Basic's defaults.css so that other
> >> >> > component sets don't have to repeat that information.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Alex
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >2018-02-22 2:43 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> Hi,
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Royale has been using the universal selector for a while now to
> >>set
> >> >> > >> defaults for Royale apps.  However, that caused problems with
> >>other
> >> >> > >> third-party CSS.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> I just pushed changes to the compiler and framework so that we
> >> >>don't
> >> >> use
> >> >> > >> the * selector.  Instead we will be using the * selector
> >>properly
> >> >>if
> >> >> > >> provided by the users CSS and we are using a special selector
> >> >>called
> >> >> > >> "global" as the "browser defaults" and the final selector in the
> >> >> lookup
> >> >> > >>we
> >> >> > >> manage.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> This should eliminate the need for other component sets to try
> >>to
> >> >> > >>exclude
> >> >> > >> the defaults.css from Basic.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> You may find that text that once looked nice now is 16px Serif.
> >> >> That's
> >> >> > >> because we are no longer using inheritance to set the
> >>font-family
> >> >>on
> >> >> all
> >> >> > >> components.  The browsers do not seem to deploy a default
> >> >>font-family
> >> >> so
> >> >> > >> the SWF side shouldn't either.  IOW, if you just put some plain
> >> >>text
> >> >> in
> >> >> > >>an
> >> >> > >> HTML file it shows up as 16px Serif.  If you see 16px Serif,
> >>let us
> >> >> know
> >> >> > >> which component is showing that by default.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> However, we don't really want to make 16px Serif the default
> >>font
> >> >>in
> >> >> our
> >> >> > >> examples, so I created a CSS-based theme in
> >>themes/Basic/basic.css
> >> >>and
> >> >> > >>put
> >> >> > >> 12px Sans-Serif as the default for a bunch of type selectors
> >>since
> >> >> that
> >> >> > >> was what our examples were using.  I did not create a default
> >>font
> >> >>for
> >> >> > >> Application as that would become the default for other component
> >> >>sets
> >> >> > >> mixed into a Royale app unless otherwise specified.  Component
> >>sets
> >> >> with
> >> >> > >> different looks can use a different theme and get different
> >> >>defaults.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> So, in sum, without any theme, we want the SWF side to look like
> >> >>the
> >> >> > >> browser and have 16px Serif.  But the royale-config.xml will
> >> >>specify
> >> >> > >> themes/Basic/basic.css as the default theme giving the examples
> >>and
> >> >> most
> >> >> > >> people's unstyled apps a more Flex-like look by using
> >>sans-serif.
> >> >> More
> >> >> > >> type selectors may need to be added to themes/Basic/basic.css in
> >> >>order
> >> >> > >>to
> >> >> > >> get sans serif everywhere by default without putting
> >>font-family on
> >> >> > >> Application.  That way, when you switch to another theme, like
> >>the
> >> >> Vivid
> >> >> > >> that Carlos is working on, there should be fewer, if any,
> >>default
> >> >> values
> >> >> > >> that screw up the other theme.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Thanks,
> >> >> > >> -Alex
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >--
> >> >> > >Carlos Rovira
> >> >> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> >> > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >> >> > >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> >> > 7C5807444789504e2f3d8c08d5
> >> >> > >79d46f81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >> >> > 7C636548875665083262&s
> >> >> > >data=MjSAbOXuFPTLeafKWOYuDDbc8oMn4YbsZ6pzwxYA6pg%3D&reserved=0
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew Wetmore
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14
> >> >>.blogspot.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7Cc2d5d47c21084996345c
> >> >>08d57a0b4647%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636549111204032
> >> >>767&sdata=5DOBst1ytHpKOuKlMicXtNr8AfJuWiEbXpk%2BmvUspLw%3D&reserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Carlos Rovira
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7Cc2d5d47c21084996345c08d5
> >> >7a0b4647%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >> 7C636549111204032767&s
> >> >data=y64W72CO7WgyBNYCVAKpczGJaisl3vwuCu00%2FWx1sVA%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C16c51d3899b54f56d1fb08d5
> >7a12f462%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636549144184428545&s
> >data=9atjDHHuhnuufVBQPZuUzM8vf30vf9Q0CP81XX8bXkg%3D&reserved=0
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Reply via email to