Hi Carlos,

I think I'm still confused.  Earlier you said that half of Jewel
components do not extend Basic components.  What do they extend and why?

I think I have proposed a solution to how we handle classNames that should
work for Jewel, MDL and all other components.  I think it would be better
for Royale to be able to use Jewel theme without a JewelUIBase unless
there is a really good technical reason.  I was hoping Jewel really would
be the replacement of views and HTMLElements in the existing Basic
components.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 4/10/18, 9:55 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>Jewel components extends UIBase or the basic version
>For example
>Jewel Button extends Basic Button,
>Jewel TextField extends Basic TextField
>Jewel Slider extends UIBase (since in Jewel like in MDL Slider is an input
>range and not 2 buttons)
>
>the main reason is that majority of basic controls can be what Jewel needs
>except for html needed (we needed structures most like MDL does) and need
>to add some property methods to add  / remove CSS rules.
>
>That's the main reason behind, in the end is to replicate what I did in
>MDL
>but using royale components and our own structure since we define the
>theme
>css rule selectors.
>
>Hope it make more sense now.
>
>thanks
>
>Carlos
>
>
>
>
>2018-04-10 18:41 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> I'm not sure if it is better for Jewel to extend from UIBase or not.  I
>> just want to understand the technical reasons why you decided not to
>> extend UIBase.  We want to make sure UIBase works for as many people as
>> possible, but on the other hand, I wouldn't mind proving that the
>> framework doesn't require org.apache.royale.core.UIBase.  Hopefully the
>> framework uses IUIBase instead.  It should be ok for someone to come up
>> with a completely different base class as long as it conforms to IUIBase
>> and other interfaces.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 4/10/18, 8:54 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Alex,
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >thanks
>> >
>> >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:
>> >>
>> >> >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 <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
>> >> >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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Carlos Rovira
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7C94ea37bd6a1546511d8208d5
>> >9efb78b1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636589725255561689&s
>> >data=rjHuwyQi0bB9d%2Fg3dfZwUnKO6Pcgdv9WDkDduUxoBi8%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b9d443224434c0f901108d5
>9f03dcfa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636589761314845249&s
>data=p3KzCEOtVSgnaoIWAc9PPyyVUwc04489PQATkrurTLo%3D&reserved=0

Reply via email to