the plan was to reuse as much as I can basic functionality. You think is
better to extend directly from UIBase? (In this case JewelUIBase)
If you think is better, then I'll go that path and we can UIBase untouched.
2018-04-10 17:15 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Why are Jewel components not extending UIBase?
> On 4/10/18, 3:45 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
> >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
> >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
> >> with the thinking behind Jewel which relies very heavily on class names
> >> 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