Thanks Alex, Peter, I don't see a problem with names with this classes...just that for me seems there's much more, but maybe due to the fact problem with Flash...but in my mind that should not be a problem and for me a refactor could be more to collapse Container (remove it and put any functionality in Group or something), so apart of "base" classes we came with Group and View. Group could be like in flex light way to group various child, and view use to be a bit more complex maybe with skin capabilities. Just thinking loud...
Maybe if there's plans to refactor, we can delay the typeNames refactor I propose...is not critical, just seems something strange right now thanks! 2018-03-28 16:42 GMT+02:00 Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com.invalid>: > The differences exist mainly because of the Player and its lack of native > support for scrolling. I created these classes as a building block and I > tried to keep it as PAYG as possible. > > If you do not really want to use the Player, then just use Group. When you > need scrolling, add to that specific Group's style, "overflow:auto" (or > some derivation). > > The Container and View classes are as Alex describes. There is also > DataContainer, the basis for the lists. > > Just to clear things up, these classes are really a Base + MXML support. > For instance there is GroupBase and Group. Group, Container, DataContainer > have the stuff in them to make MXML work whereas their Base classes > contain the common stuff. > > I'm also not happy with the names, but that's what I came up with. We > might want to do a massive refactor before official release 1.0 > > ‹peter > > On 3/27/18, 4:16 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > >-Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container. > >-Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar, > >StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for > >how children get added and removed. > >-View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic > >Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some > >ViewNavigator. > > > >I'm not completely happy with the names of these things. > > > >HTH, > >-Alex > > > >On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos > Rovira" > ><carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. > >>but > >>don't talk about View. > >> > >>What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I > >>use > >>Group, but maybe I should use View... > >>Container seems the same as Group... > >> > >>2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos > >>>Rovira" > >>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> >Hi, > >>> > > >>> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale" > >>> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group" > >>> >Why View is not "View"? > >>> > >>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more > >>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal > >>>style > >>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be > >>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If > >>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me. > >>> > >>> -Alex > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Carlos Rovira > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% > >>2 > >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d > >>5 > >>940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% > 7C636577708129102766& > >>s > >>data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0 > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
