Maybe. Not sure. How does the client know what needs to be implemented and how do they go about implementing that?
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hmm, maybe I'm not understanding you. If we decide to create a SWC with a > spark.components.Button and Alina needs 12 APIs and we only have time > right now to implement 6 of them, how would you handle the missing 6? > > I would just implement those APIs but they wouldn't do anything. They > would contain a comment or trace statement or todo. I don't think I would > create a dummy/stub spark.components.Button class, just dummy/stub methods > and properties. > > Maybe we are saying the same thing? > -Alex > > On 2/27/18, 10:15 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If things are no-op or to-dos wouldn’t “stubs” or “dummy” classes be >> better? >> >> What’s the advantage of having partially functional SWCs? It seems to me >> like it would mask the issues? >> >> Harbs >> >>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 7:48 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On the users list, Alina has provided the API report for the main >>> portion >>> of her application. We are still waiting to get a report on her SWC >>> library. She might have a pile of modules to report on as well. >>> >>> Based just on the main application, and her saying that she has 500 MXML >>> files to port, I'm leaning towards creating migration SWCs that reduce >>> the >>> amount of copy/paste. In her data, we see that only 12 out of more than >>> 100 APIs on s:Button are being used, and we have 6 of them implemented >>> already. The plan would be to write the remaining six. Some, like >>> useHandCursor might be temporary no-ops or to-dos. >>> >>> I've been pondering what to name these libraries. I've been using >>> MXish.SWC and Sparkish.SWC, but maybe we want a better name like >>> MXMigration.SWC/SparkMigration.SWC or MXRoyale.SWC/SparkRoyale.SWC or >>> RoyaleMX/RoyaleSpark.SWC. I want to imply that it isn't fully backward >>> compatible in the name of the SWC if possible. >>> >>> We could leave the namespace URI as >>> >>> xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark" >>> xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx" >>> >>> >>> just to have one less thing to change in each MXML file, although it >>> might >>> be better to use a different namespace URI to get "adobe.com" out of >>> there >>> which might help imply that it isn't fully backward compatible and go >>> with: >>> >>> xmlns:s="library://ns.apache.org/royale/spark" >>> xmlns:mx="library://ns.apache.org/royale/mx" >>> >>> I don't think we'd bother to fully re-create the Flex class hierarchy at >>> this time, but I think we will need to create a UIComponent that >>> subclasses UIBase and have all migration components extend that instead >>> of >>> extending Express or Basic components because we need to change the way >>> percentWidth/Height work in the migration components. UIBase sets the >>> style.width to a % value, but we don't want that in the migration >>> components. The Flex layout classes use percentage differently. The >>> cool >>> thing is that if we wrote our beads correctly, we can re-compose the >>> functionality from Basic and Express onto this migration library and it >>> will "just work". This illustrates the value of composition over >>> subclassing. >>> >>> >>> I think it will be a few more days before we have all of the data from >>> Alina and know how big this task will be so now is a good time to >>> discuss >>> some of the details on how this would work. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> -Alex >>> >> >
