I do like simple-js-only but that's not really what it could be. I didn't turn off the SWF build for the repo because I thought maybe I (or someone else) would go back and add the SWF side. I did write that at this point it is JS-only, but it still stands as possible to add SWF.
We have -asjs which is really -asjs+swf+js or, more important, it can be anything. However, given that right now it is a JS-only code base, I think naming it simple-js-only is a better choice. I will work on renaming it over the next few days. Thank you so much for your input. ‹peter On 4/24/18, 4:28 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >maybe better saying what's in and not what's out. For example >"royale-simple-js-only" ? > >just my 2 :) > >2018-04-24 8:36 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > >> 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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >> cee1%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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >> cee1%7 >> >>C0%7C0%7C636600381788184543&sdata=MtF1eGblWYuSi% >> 2F3nBxEulYrJg%2Fz5u6FliZt >> >>2SjT%2F0po%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter Ent >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- >Carlos Rovira >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C0f679c51ad234ba737d208d5a9 >bd764a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636601553580689134&sda >ta=cgXmmJUy8di%2Fu%2BqcRJ%2FtV5YgQVTlnYdTs6hzM8Bgp8U%3D&reserved=0
