+1 Agree. 2018-05-29 16:35 GMT+02:00 Harbs <[email protected]>:
> I agree that beads could use organization. > > Model view and controller are easy ones. The rest of the categorization is > harder. > > Layout is also pretty well defined. > > Here’s the rest of the categories I could come up with: > > ItemRenderer factories > General factories (i.e. MenuFactory) > Beads that add visuals (i.e. subcomponents) > Beads that modify visuals > Beads that add or remove functionality > > Harbs > > > On May 29, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > About beads: Right now all beads are mixed and the major problem I > > experience is to know what beads already exists and where I can find that > > code. For that reason, my proposal is to have a "bead" package, and then > > organize beads in sub packages: "views", "models", "controllers", then > for > > controls: "ui" and inside "textinput", "button", "slider", and so...if a > > bead is cross control, then goes to "ui" directly (i.e: Disabled). if is > > cross controls and components, can go to "beads" directly. In that way a > > user can visit beads/ui/textinput and take a quick look of what behaviors > > we already implemented and support. Regargid drop of "Bead" in the name, > it > > does not bring us nothing but size and verbosity since we write: > > <j:beads><j:SomeBehaviour/></j:beads> so we now "SomeBehaviour" is a > bead. > > > > How to do this? little by little. is not something we can work in a day, > so > > we need to divide the problem and go diligently to complete this task. It > > will be made in a branch and then as tested be merged. People already > > royale are Wellcome to express thoughts about this in order to take into > > account (it is preferable to remain silent and get the problem as we > > release). People will need to make adjustments, but this will happen > sooner > > or later if we want to stabilize on 1.0 some day. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-05-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > > > >> > >>> On May 29, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Olaf Krueger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Carlos, > >>> > >>> thanks for summarizing all this stuff. > >>> > >>> @all > >>> I have not followed all the discussions, but I would like to ask if > that > >>> what Carlos has presented is consensual. > >> > >> Foundation Is what Carlos is proposing as a new way of organizing > things. > >> I think we need a lot of discussion before we can decide on something > like > >> that. > >> > >>> > >>>> Remove "Bead" ending from beads to make it all less verbose. > >>> > >>> Are there still any other ways of recognizing a bead then? > >>> Or doesn't it matter if something is a bead or whatever other? > >> > >> I think all beads should be in some kind of bead package path. > >> > >>> > >>>> I offer my time to make this happen. > >>> > >>> Maybe I am wrong, but I guess these changes affect every existing > Royale > >>> application and I could imagine that during this refactoring others > maybe > >>> ran into merge conflicts. > >>> Do you have a strategy how this refactoring could be done as "quiet as > >>> possible"? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Olaf > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/ > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
