Carlos, In one of my example I have implemented custom TitleBar for Panel. In order to apply it I have used IBeadView [1]
[1] https://goo.gl/3BAU9Y Thanks, Piotr 2018-03-15 19:51 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>: > HI Alex, > > 2018-03-15 19:34 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > > > If you are saying you will have JewelTheme.swc that contains SVG and > > assets in one folder and then other folders with only CSS for setting > > colors that's fine. If you need SVG in in the Blue theme and have to > turn > > it into a SWC as well, that is also fine. The main point was to avoid > > having blue.css and red.css in the one JewelTheme.swc. > > > > Right, that's the point now have a common theme (JewelTheme) and a second > derived theme for colors and other possible changes > What is still to decide is if we should have blue, red, orange, green,.. or > maybe blue-red, blue-orange,...and then red-blue, red-orange,... > and more for gradients. Maybe this is the final part on "definitions" or > "foundations" to decide. > > > > IMO, if we want to support Bootstrap, we should do it by encapsulation > > their HTML structures, not by trying to emulate their visuals. Then > other > > Bootstrap themes will "just work". Again, Royale is primarily in the > > business of encapsulating common patterns. If every Bootstrap user must > > fashion a Button out of a <div> and <label> and <input> and give those > > tags certain attributes so the Bootstrap CSS will take effect, then a > > Bootstrap.swc for Royale would contain view beads that generate those > tags > > with those attributes. Another way of thinking about it is to take two > > different Bootstrap websites, look at the HTML DOM, find the common > > patterns, and those patterns are what the view bead generates. I thought > > MDL worked the same way. We are creating our own component set at first > > just to make debugging simple, but also to make it possible to write > > really simple HTML that isn't completely styleable and to avoid licensing > > issues, but now you are creating view beads that set up a particular HTML > > so you can style it with your CSS. If you love Bootstrap and want to use > > Bootstrap to get our default Royale look, that's fine with me, as long as > > you can stay away from licensing issues. > > > > > well, I think that's brilliant! :), I didn't think on this from that > perspective. > So instead of emulate, we can use it's own css by using view beads. > I think I'll give this a try to make a project to see how this will work. > If this is ok, we'll have the main scenario delineated and can simply start > the work :) > > MDL library had the problem that is was limited to it's own namespace > I created "mdl:Button" or "mdl:TextField", and the structure in html was > what MDL expected > now we have our own royale way through "jewel", and we can have different > themes that will > encapsulate their own view beads, this was a point of discussion with > @Piotr this morning > in an issue thread and maybe this is a great way to exemplarize what we can > do with views in themes > instead in the library > > btw, I never used a ViewBead, we have already docs on how to use it? or > maybe you can point me to a class > using a view bead. > > Finaly, I always think we must have our own style and that's where more > work will be pushed > But I think is important to set the complete scenario so if I can end a > Bootstrap effort, other can. > Maybe I could go per component, setting up different themes for > Jewel, Bootstrap, Semantic and MDL, and then > go to the next control, and so on... but main should be ours! :) > > Thanks > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
