Hi Alex,

I think you refer to this example found in Basic css

.opt_org-apache.royale-html-ComboBox_Button {
    padding: 0px;
    margin: 0px;

I want to explore this way, but can't fully understand the name composition:

I assume I need to start with ".opt_" then add fully qualified name. In the
example I found


that has "-" and "." separations.

I was expecting "org-apache-royale-html-ComboBox_Button"

assuming that "-" are used to match "ComboBox" and then "_" + somcomponent
(in this case "Button") to much a subcomponent

Another thing I found is that I see in ComboBoxView the className

button.className = "opt_org-apache.royale-html-ComboBox_Button";

Is this really needed? I was hoping that compiler will add it in the same
way is handling the pruning

I'm a bit confussed here

Let me know if this is the way to use it so I can fully understand

I'll think as well in the latest option to see how will be the final
scenario. If I make changes, I think is the moment to define it entirely.

I think could be good to prune what is not used, but don't think it should
be very important since as you said MDL, Bootstrap have a size that mostly
will be the same as Jewel when finished, so for me is part of the framework
and as HTML is the structuring part, CSS is the visual and effects part and
100 to 200kb seems to me very reasonable, and most if we want to generate
pretty and clean layouts, controls and screens.



2018-04-10 9:34 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> Type Selectors are pruned out if the Class/Type is not used in the output.
> I've toyed with ways to prune class selectors.  If you use class selectors
> with names with the pattern:
>   opt_class-qualified-name-with-hyphens_SomeName
> Then the compiler will prune out the class selector if that class is not
> in the output.  That way you can associate class selectors with a class.
> Another option is to not use class selectors at all in the framework.
> Create subclasses for all of the internal pieces and create type selectors
> for them.  This also avoids using advanced selectors in the CSS
> Implementation.
> HTH,
> -Alex
> On 4/9/18, 11:56 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We can probably eliminate the vast majority of code redundancy if that’s
> >true. The problem with CSS is that it’s pretty hard to do the same there.
> >
> >Is there any way to strip the css down to only the classes that are
> >actually used by the components used in the app? I’m guessing that will
> >be really hard…
> >
> >The work you’ve done with Jewel is great, but I didn’t realize this
> >down-side of using css classes until now.
> >
> >Harbs
> >
> >> On Apr 10, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> @Harbs, one more thing I forgot to say before, you must notice is that
> >> Jewel will increase a bit in size in CSS since I'll try layouts to be
> >> mostly CSS rules, in the other hand that will sabe lots of redundant
> >>inline
> >> code in HTML setting margins, displays, paddings, and more.
> >

Carlos Rovira

Reply via email to