Isn't Moonshine also a SWF-based app? Could try it there too. -Alex
On 2/22/18, 9:31 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: >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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C11a52efaa6da4f >e5a00c08d57a1a1c94%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365491749 >23040063&sdata=7%2F1v%2FiuUD7JOZJD87HPTozZD972I8SLrnq5bGZRkKbc%3D&reserved >=0 ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C11a52efaa6da4f >e5a00c08d57a1a1c94%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365491749 >23040063&sdata=7%2F1v%2FiuUD7JOZJD87HPTozZD972I8SLrnq5bGZRkKbc%3D&reserved >=0>*
