I think we can take another approach. Since I'm finding that half of Jewel
components are not extending basic components for one reason or another,
maybe a good option would be:

1.- Left UIBase untouched

2.- Make JewelUIBase that extends UIBase, and introduced that code

3.- Refactor Jewel components to use JewelUIBase

In this way Basic, and other sets will remain untouched and not affected by
this change

Let me know what do you think about it.


2018-04-10 9:11 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:

> The article you linked to was a very old article. I already responded to
> that. I would need some tests to prove that it’s still true today. The
> tests that I saw seemed to indicate that it wasn’t.
> Philosophically, I think you are tying the behavior of UIBase too closely
> with the thinking behind Jewel which relies very heavily on class names and
> requires that users do not change that. I don’t think that’s going to be
> true for every component set.
> I completely agree with Alex’s response.
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
> > On Apr 10, 2018, at 12:50 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Harbs,
> >
> > I though I did it. I give links to peformance links that for me proved
> that
> > people is going through classList.

Carlos Rovira

Reply via email to