Hi Carlos, I think we should move UIBase back into Core. Then maybe it will be more clear that Basic is just a set of components and not really any more special than any other set.
IMO, the logic around what to subclass in some other component set is standard computer science. How much code is being shared, re-used, overridden, etc. Usability (does there need to be a common base class for folks mixing component sets (hopefully no, interfaces should be used instead)). Things like that. So you are best judge of what to subclass and our users will tell us if they don't like it. Thanks, -Alex On 4/11/18, 1:41 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >No, I'm not talking about JewelUIBase. If you do 1), then I'll use that, >What I say is if you think Jewel Button and the rest of components, should >extend directly UIBase (and copy paste functionality of the counterpart >component in Basic if apply), or extend the Basic counterpart. >I'm for making all Jewel components extends directly UIBase > >My question is if you share the same concept > >thanks > > > >2018-04-11 21:33 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > >> >> >2) About Jewel UIBase extension: I think is better to always extend >>UIBase >> >than the Basic component as a rule. So I'll normalize the current Jewel >> >components so Basic and Jewel will be siblings and extend from UIBase >> >instead jewel extend basic and basic UIBase. Let me know if you agree >>with >> >me that this is a better decision. >> >> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I don't think Jewel needs its >>own >> UIBase. It should be able to use the one in Basic. >> > > >-- >Carlos Rovira >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C250837f2c4404b83d85508d5 >9fecaec3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636590761338123467&s >data=6CyylVKceFeVVBD0NaTiOfVkUR5CRGLMNBL2SxsemJM%3D&reserved=0