No. className is supposed to *replace* the entire classList minus the 
internally managed ones (i.e. typeNames). Your code drastically changes the 
current behavior.

You cannot use add for that and replacing the classList will destroy your 
custom class names.

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Solving the multiple string value problem:
> 
> This: <j:TextButton text="PRIMARY" className="myCustomStyle some other"
> primary="true"/>
> 
> *<button type="button" class="jewel button textbutton myCustomStyle some
> other primary" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px; display:
> block;">PRIMARY</button>*
> 
> with this change
> 
> COMPILE::JS
> protected function setClassName(value:String):void
> {
> var classes:Array = value.split(" ");
> element.classList.add.apply(element.classList, classes);
> }
> 
> I think this was all the problems we have right?
> 
> 
> 2018-03-13 13:20 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
> 
>> Hi Piotr,
>> 
>> that's one of the advantages of a collection, order doesn't matter! :)
>> 
>> <j:TextButton text="PRIMARY" className="myCustomStyle" primary="true"/>
>> 
>> output:
>> 
>> *<button type="button" class="jewel button textbutton myCustomStyle
>> primary" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px; display: block;">PRIMARY</button>*
>> 
>> this is one of the reason to change, since you'll end trying to figure
>> what comes in first or not.
>> 
>> Do you need more evidence?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> 2018-03-13 12:48 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> In my example orders matters. Setup first className than your property.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 12:39 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>> 
>>>> I definitely appreciate the work you are doing. I’m swamped with work
>>>> right now, so I don’t have the time to spend helping you. (Sorry about
>>>> that.) :-(
>>>> 
>>>> I think the discussions here are about pretty minor points. You can
>>>> certainly implement jewel how you think makes sense, but if you want to
>>>> make changes to basic in areas which are not broken, there needs to be a
>>>> really good reason to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> My $0.02,
>>>> Harbs
>>>>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for your words, but is difficult to work on something when you
>>>>> believe in your vision and others no, and more over when all the facts
>>>> you
>>>>> see corroborates that vision. It's difficult to maintain live the
>>> moto in
>>>>> that scenario.
>>>>> 
>>>>> but anyway for you Kindly words
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carlos
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2018-03-13 12:21 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Carlos,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my opinion you are not facing the wall from US. You are facing the
>>>> wall
>>>>>> from lack of volounteers who can help, do the job.
>>>>>> Believe me your Jewel effort in my list of tasks is almost on the
>>> Top. I
>>>>>> have to fiinish planned work in TranspiledActionScript first and I
>>> hope
>>>> to
>>>>>> join.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When it will be - maybe in couple of weeks. In the end something
>>> have to
>>>>>> pay the bills and Royale is only fraction of that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I contribute in other related areas. I Wish I could contribute in
>>> your
>>>> way
>>>>>> or Alex and Peter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your work!
>>>>>> Piotr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 12:00 Piotr Zarzycki <
>>> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I personally said - Go and try, report back. I have gave you an real
>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> examples where classList failed. Try and post the results.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2018-03-13 11:49 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> it's very hard to me to invest lot of time both in tryin to develop
>>>>>>>> something useful in the look and feel field for us where no other
>>> is
>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>> work, trying to explain and discuss all issues I find without get
>>> any
>>>>>>>> traction. It's like to face a wall all the time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm wrong with my proposals but other times my perception is
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> things are settled in a particular way
>>>>>>>> and we don't want to change it since is working in the current
>>> state.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> think we always where thinking of change things as we evolve
>>> Royale.
>>>>>> We're
>>>>>>>> in a 0.9.2 release, we're not in 1.0, but the way we're managing
>>> all
>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>>> me that we're fine with what we have now and we are freezing the
>>> API.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In all the issues raised last days only CSS compiler errors are
>>> real
>>>>>> bugs,
>>>>>>>> since without that fixes royale can't output concrete CSS rules (I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>> those not require any discussion)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The font injection is maybe another bug (don't know why a class in
>>> a
>>>>>> theme
>>>>>>>> is not "visible" by the final app), but can be workarounded with an
>>>> html
>>>>>>>> that setup the font for now.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Things like classNames discussion are not critical (I know), it's
>>>> just a
>>>>>>>> matter to refine the API since I had problems each time I go that
>>>> path,
>>>>>>>> first with MDL and now with Jewel. Maybe I'm the only one since no
>>>> other
>>>>>>>> has tried what I'm trying to do: Creating Themes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, give the users only a way to manage classNames vía
>>>>>> string,
>>>>>>>> is insufficient and cumbersome and deserves at a minimun some API
>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>> since is an important point in how UI is stylized, and how controls
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> objects in html can be "extended" or diferenciated (Alex explained
>>>> very
>>>>>>>> well the importance of this in the typenames thread). So some API
>>> to
>>>>>> ease
>>>>>>>> that is for me very Wellcome since I'm doing that work, and will be
>>>> more
>>>>>>>> users doing that work. In this point, I don't think we should
>>> shield
>>>> us
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> things like PAYG or if that is a bit less performant.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> To close and avoid having much discussion to not reach to some
>>>> valuable
>>>>>>>> point:  I can try to go with what we have, but makes me feel not so
>>>> good
>>>>>>>> about the continuous rejection of my proposals. As well, you are
>>>> saying
>>>>>>>> that we should wait to what users demand...but I'm an user of the
>>> API,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> my perception as a "zero user" seems to be not valuable. Since I
>>> don't
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> traction on this, I'll try to continue with what we have and report
>>>> back
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2018-03-13 9:24 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Alex Harui
>>> <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am so sad and frustrated that we have spent so much time on
>>>>>>>> managing a
>>>>>>>>>> set of strings.  I just don't think we have the people power to
>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>>> to seek perfection until it is truly needed by a user.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>>>>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to