IMO, "simple" is too subjective. IMO, the name should indicate the key differentiators. So "no-swf" might be part of the name.
My 2 cents, -Alex On 4/23/18, 11:59 AM, "Peter Ent" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I picked "Foundation" because "Basic" was taken and I was thinking of "foundation classes". I guess I should have been more open on the list that I was creating a new set of components. I did this as a fun task for myself while I was discharging all of the thoughts on Royale Basic in my head about these years in FlexJS/Royale and I wanted to preserve those thoughts. I did not intend this to be disruptive in any way; I didn't think people would be obliged to look at it right away (or even at all if they didn't feel interested). Perhaps it is best if I rename the repository. How do you feel about "royale-simple"? I think "simple" is good because the classes are not that complex. I have been asked why I thought this was necessary to do and if I looked at the MDL project to see about leveraging it. I did not look at MDL (I did follow MDL when it was being developed but it has been a long while), but I have today gone back and looked at some key classes. First, this project was not necessary to fill any deficiencies in Royale. This was, as I said above, just a fun project for me. I like to write code. There's something very creative about starting with a nearly blank slate and producing something, even if something like already exists. One main thing I did that is different from MDL and Basic, is that I made everything inherit from a common base class - UIComponent. In Basic (and MDL), buttons are different due to their SWF-side implementation. I made Buttons a UIComponent and I made the Application a UIComponent as well. I also enhanced IUIBase and added other properties. I also wanted to give it some Flex-like appeal so I kept some of the same class names that I liked; I was inspired by revisiting Flex recently. There is nothing wrong with what we have created in Royale. I think it is a testament to its design that a new framework can be added without much work and demonstrates to people that they can make their own frameworks using Apache Royale as their starting point. I'll wait a few days and if there are no objections, I'll rename "royale-foundation" to "royale-simple". Thanks, Peter On 4/22/18, 7:55 PM, "Niclas Hedhman" <[email protected]> wrote: >If this goes forward, I hope to see a different name... Apache Royale >Foundation sounds like some daughter/sibling organization of Apache >Software Foundation. > >I.e. I understand that "Foundation" here is similar to that of Microsoft >Foundation Classes, but due to ASF's name, I think it is unfortunate if >this name persist. > >My 2 cent >Niclas > >On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 00:37 Peter Ent <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As many of you know, over five years ago Adobe Systems donated Flex to >>the >> Apache Foundation. My time on this mission is drawing to a close in a >> couple of weeks. I am actively trying to find a new position within >>Adobe. >> I hope to continue to participate in the Royale project, but that may be >> determined by my next employer/manager. >> >> In the meantime, I decided to look back through all my notes and ideas >>and >> I created a "thesis" project to express what I've learned and to leave >>my >> ideas out there for others to use. >> >> I've created what I call "Apache Royale Foundation" - an alternative to >> the Basic project in Royale. I have this stored in a public >>repository[1], >> separate from royale-asjs. The Foundation project (in >>frameworks/projects) >> would be a sibling to Basic, but I needed to make a few changes to the >>Core >> project and I did not want take the chance of messing up the royale-asjs >> repository, even with a separate branch. I just felt it was safer to >>make a >> new public repo using my Apache Github account. >> >> The royale-foundation repo is a downsized version of royale-asjs. I took >> only a handful of projects from frameworks (e.g., Core, Network) that I >> thought I could make use of either directly in Foundation or in >>examples. I >> set up the commits to first put in the downsized code, then changes to >> Core, then the main Foundation classes. This way you can see what >>changes >> were made to Core (mainly to IUIBase and a just a few others). >> >> For a more detailed explanation of Foundation, I wrote a Wiki page[2] to >> go with the code. I really wanted to see what writing an >> almost-from-scratch framework involved. I decided to ignore the Flash >> Player and concentrate exclusively on HTML/JS. While royale-foundation >>will >> build something on the SWF side, it will either not run or produce just >>a >> blank window. This was a fun project to fill the time and improve my >> JavaScript and CSS skills while looking for my next challenge. >> >> I could not have done this without the Core project and the work of >> everyone who has contributed to Royale. There are a lot of background >> pieces that go into make a framework viable and I made use of them as >>much >> as possible. >> >> I suggest starting with the Wiki[2] before looking at the code[1]. Once >> you do get the code, you should be able to build it using ANT (I did not >> modify the maven pom files yet) and then build the examples. >> >> [1] Apache Royale Foundation Repo: >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c >>om%2Fpentapache%2Froyale-foundation&data=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C5cf >>7d87b0ef34ce3818c08d5a8aca1d9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% >>7C636600381788184543&sdata=gpllo0jYdNsp%2FWQm0R7Lxi57l4muoyWX7Tf9YKZaF%2F >>Y%3D&reserved=0 >> >> [2] Apache Royale Foundation Wiki (in the Repo): >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c >>om%2Fpentapache%2Froyale-foundation%2Fwiki&data=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.co >>m%7C5cf7d87b0ef34ce3818c08d5a8aca1d9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7 >>C0%7C0%7C636600381788184543&sdata=MtF1eGblWYuSi%2F3nBxEulYrJg%2Fz5u6FliZt >>2SjT%2F0po%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Regards, >> Peter Ent >> >>
