Hi Carlos, It is fine to have two different examples. I don't really care what they are called. Please make sure the Jewel version does not output SWF so it is clear there are no expectations that the SWF version will work correctly.
Unless you or other volunteers have the time to get Jewel to work in SWF (I did get some functionality working so it didn't just crash), any time you want to add Jewel to an example it will be better to fork it and change the build configuration so it no longer outputs SWF. Thanks, -Alex On 10/2/18, 12:56 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Alex, I think we should duplicate the example so we can have a Basic version and a Jewel version. We're publishing examples on social networks and good looking interface in crucial. So if we want both things we only can fork and have *RemoteObjectAMFTest* and *RemoteObjectAMFTestJewel* or *RemoteObjectAMFTest* and *RemoteObjectAMFTestBasic* Maybe the later is better since we published the other name as the one that uses the good looking interface thanks El mar., 2 oct. 2018 a las 2:55, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > At some point the RemoteObjectAMFTest broke for SWF. This is rather > annoying as it was a good test bed for debugging the compiler output and > comparing the JS code to the SWF code. One thing that broke it was > upgrading the UI to use Jewel components because Jewel isn't working that > well in SWF. Our examples should work on both SWF and JS with a few > exceptions where the app was designed for JS only, like MDL examples. I'm > tempted to rip the Jewel components out of this example and go back to > Basic. > > -Alex > > -- Carlos Rovira https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C54637ba688a6403e852408d6283c8f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636740637896388241&sdata=iLNMMNxKbreKppRqugiCEuEt8d7pslxFq77ntG%2FlgiI%3D&reserved=0
