Do you have ideas for a naming structure?
> On May 29, 2018, at 5:50 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +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
