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, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > >> 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, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos >>Rovira" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >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
