Why are Jewel components not extending UIBase? On 4/10/18, 3:45 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Hi > >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. > >Thanks > > >2018-04-10 9:11 GMT+02:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdaafba5ff16a4a20856508d5 >9ed02fcc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636589539427581762&s >data=Y9fXcrA51Ox3ztRIM4s0Z%2BH3vSUkagbqXpU1W6slul0%3D&reserved=0
