Hi Greg, I'm really happy that you are helping Carlos with that! He may move forward much faster. I just have question to following:
"-My understanding is that best practice is to avoid multiple identical ids in the browser, irrespective of whether the browser is forgiving of that or not. If so, it might be good to have at least an option to set the default implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM ids 'off' by default, 'on' explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by accident'). Maybe some sort of import wizard for a legacy flex project could do something like this in an IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler config thing too perhaps." Does your idea is saying that if I have some Flex app or even write some on my own setting that option to ON - change the way how things are outputting after compilation ? Do you mean that: <Button id="myid" /> - Option is ON output will be: <Button localId="myid" /> I'm sorry if I misunderstand you completely :) Thanks, Piotr pt., 2 lis 2018 o 08:31 Greg Dove <[email protected]> napisał(a): > In collaboration with Carlos, I worked on a compiler fix for some issues > identified with localId in the javascript output. I pushed that a short > while ago. This fixes > -binding into the localId (in my local test cases) and > -some occasional issues with referencing the instance from within script > blocks in release (minified) code. > Or at least, it does so for the cases I have been testing. If anyone else > sees remaining issues with this feature that need more attention, please > let me know. > > Now on to the 'subject' : > As part of 'getting familiar' with this I went back to read old threads > about 'id v.s localId'. > I *think* these [1] [2] were the main ones, but maybe I missed some other > discussions. > > After reading these, I wondered if anyone had changed their views about the > implementation as it is, after having used it for a while. > > It may be too late to change things, but here are my quick thoughts about > this: > -My understanding is that best practice is to avoid multiple identical ids > in the browser, irrespective of whether the browser is forgiving of that or > not. If so, it might be good to have at least an option to set the default > implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM ids 'off' by default, 'on' > explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by accident'). Maybe some sort of > import wizard for a legacy flex project could do something like this in an > IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler config thing too perhaps. > > -I can't think of a scenario where I would want to set both id and localId > at the same time or what doing so would mean. Either you want to set the > DOM id or you don't, in which case missing id and defined localId is more > like a boolean for not setting DOM id (the implementation is not, but to me > it seems that it could -maybe should- be). Maybe I am missing something > here. > > -'id' is the basis for code completion/intelligence in legacy IDEs. Using > 'localId' means this does not work in the legacy IDEs and newer IDEs need > to add custom support for it. Anything that keeps 'id' as the primary local > identifier seems like the best way to get more life out of legacy IDEs. > > So to me, the simplest option seems to be more along the lines of > > <Instance id="myLocalOnlyId" localId="true" /> > <Instance id="myLegacyId" localId="false" /> > > Semantically it is probably better as 'localIdOnly' for the boolean > setting, but 'localId' is shorter (which is perhaps better). > > In this case, you get more mileage from older IDEs, and a simpler > implementation for updating IDEs to handle the extra mxml-only boolean > setting. In simple terms everything else works the same so the IDEs still > work for code intelligence. > > An unspecified 'localId' boolean in mxml would currently be the same as > false, but could possibly have a global configuration default - not sure > about that, but maybe it could be useful. > > If there is an issue with styling on the swf side with valid multiple ids > vs. html, then I think the swf side could perhaps be outlawed in favour of > best practice for html. Too much? :) > > Anyhow, I am just raising this now in case anyone else has changed their > thinking after using it as-is for a while, and before it gets too late to > consider changing it (if it is not already too late). > If there is some consensus to change this, I am happy to work on it. > > > > 1. > > http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i40.html#a63276 > 2. > > http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i60.html#a63919 > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
