className in Royale == class in HTML.

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I think we're getting to the point in this discussion.
> 
> For me as a user, I expect to use className property to "add", and not
> override all I have
> for that reason in MDL and now in Royale we decided to create properties
> (that use to be boolean) like "primary" or in MDL "fab" to add or remove
> those properties (since are library properties that are managed
> specifically).
> I don't want to set primary and then className removes that! I think that
> function is not right and will be the cause of many problems.
> 
> If the user wants to remove all class names, he can do with a method that
> callls element.classList.remove, but the behavior by default shouldn't be
> to use className to get rid of all what we have.
> 
> If you work with html directly , is normal to write class="class1 class2
> ..." and create from scratch
> 
> in Royale you write mxml and as3 and use className to add additional
> classes that are not in the api but not to remove the ones the component
> set plus the ones the user "switched" on/off due to properties
> 
> 
> 
> 2018-03-13 13:42 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to