Hi Carlos, You have less events flying around the head. :)
Piotr On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 11:32 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Piotr and Greg, > > I'm catching up with all the thread. I'm testing and seems all is ok, Seems > Jewel List, ComboBox, DropDownList are now much better and robust :) > Great work! Thanks for working on this! :) > > Carlos > > > > > > El dom., 23 dic. 2018 a las 9:16, Piotr Zarzycki (< > [email protected]>) > escribió: > > > Great! More tests the better. I will switch to your branch as well when > you > > make the changes. > > > > Many Thanks for help with that. Let's see what's more comes on the road. > :) > > > > Best, > > Piotr > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 11:23 PM Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I already checked this against the app that we are working on, so feel > > free > > > to merge that in if it fixes the problem you were seeing, Piotr. > > > For the more general changes with dispatching from strand and avoiding > > > IEventDispatcher-ness , I can come back to that and try to do a > refactor > > > sweep through these changes as discussed with Alex, and the other > > component > > > sets in a couple of weeks. But I will do that in a refactor branch. I'm > > not > > > using the other component sets at the moment, and although I know there > > are > > > example projects to check against, I think checking against a > > 'real-world' > > > app is also important. Maybe Harbs and any any others who perhaps may > > have > > > used Basic or Express etc in actual apps will be able to verify things > > for > > > those component sets in the refactor branch at the time, if they have > > been > > > using them. I will make a request for others to check things when I do > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:22 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > I have fixed issues with navigation in my application code. I'm ok > with > > > > changes in that branch. > > > > > > > > Thanks for all changes! > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > sob., 22 gru 2018 o 10:18 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > In your app are you using navigation in that way? > > > > > Maybe I need to call some prevent method somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 9:57 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Greg, > > > > >> > > > > >> Good news. I was able to build framework using ant and produce IDE > > > > >> artifacts. Tested your changes and looks good. However I see other > > > > issue. I > > > > >> have following code [1]. When I click on link in navigation (I'm > > > > listening > > > > >> on change event) - I'm trying to change view using > > > > ApplicationMainContent - > > > > >> it's navigates me to new website with new url instead changing > view. > > > > >> > > > > >> I need to investigate why it is happen. Apart of that I believe we > > are > > > > ok > > > > >> with that branch. > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://paste.apache.org/UzJI > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, Piotr > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> pt., 21 gru 2018 o 09:29 Greg Dove <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > > >>> Ok Piotr, I'm not sure what is happening there. It does seem > > strange > > > - > > > > >>> shell.view.royale.Shell seems like a class and somehow has org > > > > >>> <http://shell.view.royale.shell.org/ > > > >.apache.royale.jewel.Application > > > > >>> appended to it. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I don't think that is related to anything I did (and it works > fine > > > > >>> against > > > > >>> the 'real-world' app I tested against - with maven build). Can > you > > > > build > > > > >>> Tour de Jewel ok? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:04 PM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Hi Greg, > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for your changes. Unfortunately I'm not able so far > > properly > > > > >>> build > > > > >>> > my real world app using Maven. I build Jewel module by Maven, > so > > I > > > > have > > > > >>> > setup my app to be buildable with Maven. Unfortunately I'm > > getting > > > > >>> weird > > > > >>> > exception during running app. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > SimpleCSSValuesImpl.js:102 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read > > property > > > > >>> > 'string' of undefined > > > > >>> > at > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.royale.core.AllCSSValuesImpl.org.apache.royale.core.SimpleCSSValuesImpl.init > > > > >>> > (SimpleCSSValuesImpl.js:102) > > > > >>> > at > > > > >>> > shell.view.royale.Shell.org > > > > >>> > .apache.royale.jewel.Application.set__valuesImpl > > > > >>> > (Application.js:311) > > > > >>> > at shell.view.royale.Shell.org > > .apache.royale.jewel.Application > > > > [as > > > > >>> > constructor] (Application.js:46) > > > > >>> > at Function.childCtor.base (base.js:2515) > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Above exception is not occurs when I'm building using Nightly. > I > > > > >>> probably > > > > >>> > will have to build framework by ant and prepare IDE compatible > > > > >>> environment > > > > >>> > or will try to rebuild whole framework by Maven and try again. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks, Piotr > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > czw., 20 gru 2018 o 10:49 Piotr Zarzycki < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > napisał(a): > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Hi Greg, > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > Great news, cause I was going to look into that somewhere > > between > > > > >>> > > Christmas and New Year. I would be happy to test your > changes! > > Do > > > > not > > > > >>> > > hesitate push it! > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you so much! > > > > >>> > > Piotr > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > czw., 20 gru 2018 o 10:39 Greg Dove <[email protected]> > > > > >>> napisał(a): > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >> Piotr, Alex, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> fyi I found some time to spend on this today, and Piotr, I > > > should > > > > be > > > > >>> > ready > > > > >>> > >> to push the changes I made to your branch tomorrow morning > my > > > time > > > > >>> > (local > > > > >>> > >> time - GMT+13). > > > > >>> > >> It seems to be fine so far with 'selectionChange' for > binding > > > > based > > > > >>> on > > > > >>> > >> model changes and 'change' for class event meta. I have been > > > been > > > > >>> > testing > > > > >>> > >> so far against Tour de Jewel, but I will test against our > > > > real-world > > > > >>> > >> project as well before I push to your branch Piotr. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> -Greg > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:45 AM Greg Dove < > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > Alex, I can't remember offhand, but I think we used that > > once > > > in > > > > >>> only > > > > >>> > >> one > > > > >>> > >> > place, and I did it really quickly. I am sure there will > be > > a > > > > way > > > > >>> to > > > > >>> > >> avoid > > > > >>> > >> > it. > > > > >>> > >> > I think the bigger issue is the way I did the changes to > the > > > > >>> model to > > > > >>> > >> > support dispatching change events for programmatic > changes, > > > > which > > > > >>> I > > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >>> > >> > Piotr was looking at. > > > > >>> > >> > Maybe I can take a look at that later today, but I can't > be > > > > >>> certain. > > > > >>> > >> > The simplest fix might be to revert everything I did and > add > > > > >>> binding > > > > >>> > for > > > > >>> > >> > the selection changes (currently 'selectedIndexChanged' > and > > > > >>> > >> > 'selectedItemChanged' which I know you say could be > > > > >>> > 'selectionChanged') > > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >>> > >> > addition to 'change' (as discussed) and make sure the > > > component > > > > is > > > > >>> > >> > dispatching those from the model (if it does not already > do > > > so). > > > > >>> If > > > > >>> > >> > 'selectionChanged' (or whatever it is) is already > happening > > > as a > > > > >>> > result > > > > >>> > >> of > > > > >>> > >> > 'change' in addition to setter triggered changes, then it > > > could > > > > >>> be a > > > > >>> > >> simple > > > > >>> > >> > swap for the binding event only (as discussed also) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > But this last part was also applicable to the wholesale > > change > > > > to > > > > >>> all > > > > >>> > >> > component sets we were discussing, not just Jewel. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:17 AM Alex Harui > > > > >>> <[email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> Greg, Carlos, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> Can one of you put together a simple test case that > > > > demonstrates > > > > >>> your > > > > >>> > >> >> need for this "OnStartup" bead? It doesn't need server > > > access. > > > > >>> You > > > > >>> > >> can > > > > >>> > >> >> probably inject a dataProvider on applicationComplete or > > have > > > > the > > > > >>> > user > > > > >>> > >> push > > > > >>> > >> >> a button if the issue is about deferred arrival of server > > > data. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> IMO, we have to be more concerned about getting the > > patterns > > > > >>> right > > > > >>> > >> >> regressions, and the best way to avoid getting > regressions > > is > > > > to > > > > >>> > >> provide a > > > > >>> > >> >> simple test case that demonstrates a problem in the > > patterns. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> Hopefully, "OnStartup" beads are not going to be required > > and > > > > >>> won't > > > > >>> > be > > > > >>> > >> >> part of the framework. The usability of the framework > will > > > go > > > > >>> down > > > > >>> > if > > > > >>> > >> >> folks have to keep adding more and more "OnThis" and > > "OnThat" > > > > >>> beads > > > > >>> > to > > > > >>> > >> get > > > > >>> > >> >> their app to work. The approachability of the framework > in > > > > >>> terms of > > > > >>> > >> >> documentation and number of classes won't scale either if > > we > > > > >>> don't > > > > >>> > get > > > > >>> > >> >> these patterns right. This doesn't mean that you can't > use > > > an > > > > >>> > >> "onStartup" > > > > >>> > >> >> bead in your app in order to meet some deadline, and > share > > it > > > > >>> with > > > > >>> > >> others, > > > > >>> > >> >> but we have to be careful about what patterns we promote > in > > > the > > > > >>> SDK. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> My 2 cents, > > > > >>> > >> >> -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> On 12/18/18, 12:17 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> Hi Piotr, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> I would be happy to work on it, and wish I could, but > > the > > > > >>> problem > > > > >>> > >> for > > > > >>> > >> >> me at > > > > >>> > >> >> the moment is that I can't make it a priority, > because > > > for > > > > >>> now at > > > > >>> > >> >> least it > > > > >>> > >> >> is functioning as we need it, and there are plenty of > > > > things > > > > >>> that > > > > >>> > >> are > > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> (mostly unrelated to Jewel). While the implementation > > as > > > it > > > > >>> > stands > > > > >>> > >> >> might > > > > >>> > >> >> not be 'right', it does function as we need it to for > > > now. > > > > I > > > > >>> > >> suspect > > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >>> > >> >> is what Carlos meant when he said he was concerned > > about > > > > >>> > >> regressions. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> I have other stuff queued up to add in other areas > too, > > > > like > > > > >>> > >> >> AMFBinaryData > > > > >>> > >> >> and AMFNetConnection but will need to do more work to > > > > >>> generalize > > > > >>> > >> it, > > > > >>> > >> >> as I > > > > >>> > >> >> have it these working in a way that is almost > complete, > > > but > > > > >>> > mostly > > > > >>> > >> >> focused > > > > >>> > >> >> on what is sufficient for what Carlos needs for now. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> I hope to get some free time in early January to > finish > > > up > > > > >>> these > > > > >>> > >> >> things. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:53 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >>> > >> >> [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >>> > >> >> > Hi Guys, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > I definitely need to a way of resolve that > problem. I > > > > will > > > > >>> > review > > > > >>> > >> >> emails > > > > >>> > >> >> > tomorrow. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > However if you Greg would like to try something go > > for > > > > it. > > > > >>> > Would > > > > >>> > >> be > > > > >>> > >> >> great > > > > >>> > >> >> > if you could use my branch where changes which > > removes > > > > >>> > >> dispatching > > > > >>> > >> >> "change" > > > > >>> > >> >> > event from model are in place. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > Thanks, Piotr > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > pon., 17 gru 2018 o 23:46 Alex Harui > > > > >>> <[email protected] > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > napisał(a): > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Hi Greg, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > I haven't looked at how pervasive this change > would > > > be. > > > > >>> I'm > > > > >>> > >> >> mainly > > > > >>> > >> >> > saying > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that Flex worked with these categories of events > > and > > > I > > > > >>> think > > > > >>> > >> >> Royale can > > > > >>> > >> >> > too > > > > >>> > >> >> > > and would eliminate the need for > > > > DispatchChangeOnStartup > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > >> >> things like > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > You could be right that the models only need to > > > > dispatch > > > > >>> > >> >> selectionChange > > > > >>> > >> >> > > and not "change", as long as the controllers are > > > > >>> guaranteed > > > > >>> > to > > > > >>> > >> >> update the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > model in a way that fires selectionChange. I > have > > > this > > > > >>> > feeling > > > > >>> > >> >> that in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Flex there were some backdoors for updating > > > properties > > > > >>> > without > > > > >>> > >> >> > dispatching > > > > >>> > >> >> > > events and dispatching the event "later", but I > > don't > > > > >>> think > > > > >>> > >> we've > > > > >>> > >> >> had to > > > > >>> > >> >> > > write such code in Royale and maybe we won't have > > to > > > or > > > > >>> can't > > > > >>> > >> >> because the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > browser will update right away in many cases. > > There > > > > were > > > > >>> > >> >> somethings you > > > > >>> > >> >> > > could do in Flash knowing that all rendering was > > > > >>> deferred to > > > > >>> > >> frame > > > > >>> > >> >> > > updates. In Royale, with separate models, the > > > > controller > > > > >>> > code > > > > >>> > >> >> can't just > > > > >>> > >> >> > > set the backing variable. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > So, if you want to give it a try having only > > > > >>> selectionChange > > > > >>> > as > > > > >>> > >> >> the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > bindable event, go for it. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > On 12/17/18, 12:35 PM, "Greg Dove" < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Thanks Alex. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > I only looked in Basic TextInput because I > was > > > > >>> looking > > > > >>> > for > > > > >>> > >> a > > > > >>> > >> >> simpler > > > > >>> > >> >> > > example of the general case being discussed. > > That > > > > >>> code > > > > >>> > >> looks > > > > >>> > >> >> like it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > might > > > > >>> > >> >> > > need some work on the swf side in any case. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > I was just looking for the > 'programmaticChange' > > > vs > > > > >>> > >> >> > > 'userInitiatedChange' > > > > >>> > >> >> > > differences. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Based on a quick look at the other Basic > > classes, > > > > the > > > > >>> > >> >> conclusions > > > > >>> > >> >> > > appear > > > > >>> > >> >> > > similar. They are bindable via 'change' > only. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > And the models all dispatch both > > > > >>> selectedIndexChanged and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectedItemChanged. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > So it seems like you are proposing broad > > changes > > > > for > > > > >>> > >> >> everything, if > > > > >>> > >> >> > > they > > > > >>> > >> >> > > are to also support binding changes for > > > > programmatic > > > > >>> > >> changes? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > For me, the change in something (or nothing) > > > being > > > > >>> > >> 'selected' > > > > >>> > >> >> > logically > > > > >>> > >> >> > > occurs as a result of either user change or > > > > >>> programmatic > > > > >>> > >> >> change. On > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that > > > > >>> > >> >> > > basis would it be possible to have the > > > > >>> selectionChange as > > > > >>> > >> the > > > > >>> > >> >> sole > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Binding > > > > >>> > >> >> > > event (which occurs from setter induced > change > > > and > > > > >>> from > > > > >>> > >> user > > > > >>> > >> >> induced > > > > >>> > >> >> > > change) and the 'change' event as > > > user-interaction > > > > >>> only > > > > >>> > as > > > > >>> > >> >> the class > > > > >>> > >> >> > > level > > > > >>> > >> >> > > event type (as it is now)? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > I have not thought about this as much as you > > > (Alex > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > >> >> others) have, > > > > >>> > >> >> > so > > > > >>> > >> >> > > maybe that last suggestion does not make > sense. > > > > But I > > > > >>> > >> really > > > > >>> > >> >> think > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > whatever does make sense it would be great to > > > > settle > > > > >>> on > > > > >>> > >> >> something and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > get > > > > >>> > >> >> > > it consistent for all components asap. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:43 AM Alex Harui > > > > >>> > >> >> <[email protected] > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Hi Greg, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > You are correct that there is a pain point > > > around > > > > >>> > binding > > > > >>> > >> >> overhead > > > > >>> > >> >> > > and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > PAYG. I can't think of a PAYG way of > adding > > > the > > > > >>> > ability > > > > >>> > >> to > > > > >>> > >> >> add > > > > >>> > >> >> > more > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > binding events via beads that doesn't have > > too > > > > much > > > > >>> > >> >> overhead for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > folks not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > interested in those extra events. > Actually, > > > > there > > > > >>> are > > > > >>> > >> some > > > > >>> > >> >> ways > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that are > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > JS-only like replacing prototype-methods, > > but I > > > > >>> don't > > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >>> > >> >> we > > > > >>> > >> >> > > should rely > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > on mutable class definitions. In many > cases > > > we > > > > >>> make > > > > >>> > >> >> trade-offs > > > > >>> > >> >> > and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Basic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > ends up being what we think almost all > folks > > > > "must > > > > >>> > have". > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > When we first started out I was hoping to > > > reduce > > > > >>> > binding > > > > >>> > >> >> overhead > > > > >>> > >> >> > > which is > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > why some of the beads look like they do, > but > > > > these > > > > >>> > days I > > > > >>> > >> >> think it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > is more > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > important to separate interactive events > from > > > > >>> > >> binding/setup > > > > >>> > >> >> events. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Folks > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > who don't use a particular binding event > can > > > > always > > > > >>> > >> replace > > > > >>> > >> >> the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > model and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > top-level component with a version without > > > events > > > > >>> they > > > > >>> > >> are > > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > interested > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > in, or in the JS output, run a post-process > > to > > > > >>> cull out > > > > >>> > >> >> metadata. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > But > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > under the "almost all folks" rule, I think > > > > "almost > > > > >>> all > > > > >>> > >> >> folks" don't > > > > >>> > >> >> > > want to > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > run interaction handling code at setup > time. > > > > >>> > Especially > > > > >>> > >> if > > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >>> > >> >> > > handling > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > code runs any sort of animation or does any > > > other > > > > >>> heavy > > > > >>> > >> >> processing. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that > if > > > you > > > > >>> just > > > > >>> > >> take > > > > >>> > >> >> a > > > > >>> > >> >> > > <select> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > element, you can set its initial selection > > > value > > > > >>> > without > > > > >>> > >> it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > dispatching an > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > event called "change". Then when a user > > > selects > > > > an > > > > >>> > item > > > > >>> > >> >> you get a > > > > >>> > >> >> > > "change" > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > event. IMO, this is why "change" should be > > an > > > > >>> > >> interactive > > > > >>> > >> >> event > > > > >>> > >> >> > and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > not a > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > binding event. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > So these are the reasons I think we should > > > adjust > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > >> basic > > > > >>> > >> >> beads > > > > >>> > >> >> > to > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > separate interactive events from setup > events > > > and > > > > >>> why > > > > >>> > >> >> "change" is > > > > >>> > >> >> > an > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > interactive event. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Now, we could renew the effort to make > Basic > > > the > > > > >>> truly > > > > >>> > >> >> smallest > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > implementation and move some of this logic > to > > > > >>> Express, > > > > >>> > >> but > > > > >>> > >> >> I keep > > > > >>> > >> >> > > seeing > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > code creep into Basic to handle situations > > that > > > > >>> almost > > > > >>> > >> all > > > > >>> > >> >> folks > > > > >>> > >> >> > > need. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > TextInput, on the other hand, has been an > > > > >>> exception of > > > > >>> > >> >> sorts in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Flex. The > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Flash/AIR runtime dispatches "change" on > > > certain > > > > >>> kinds > > > > >>> > of > > > > >>> > >> >> changes. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > So > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > early implementations in Royale tried to > > mimic > > > > that > > > > >>> > >> >> behavior for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > folks > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > coming from Flex. But maybe we should > change > > > > that > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > >> make > > > > >>> > >> >> Basic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > TextInput > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > more consistent with browser behavior. The > > > > >>> emulation > > > > >>> > >> >> components > > > > >>> > >> >> > can > > > > >>> > >> >> > > mimic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > the old Flex behavior. So I think using > > > > TextInput > > > > >>> as > > > > >>> > >> >> precedent is > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > misleading. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > On 12/17/18, 10:55 AM, "Greg Dove" < > > > > >>> > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Alex, I was giving this some more > thought > > > > >>> also. I > > > > >>> > >> >> understood > > > > >>> > >> >> > > that you > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > meant > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > to add extra events for binding from > your > > > > >>> previous > > > > >>> > >> >> comments. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > But isn't the established pattern to > add > > a > > > > >>> bead to > > > > >>> > >> >> listen for > > > > >>> > >> >> > the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > selectionChange and redispatch it as > > > change? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > At least that seems to be the case > > > elsewhere > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > If I look at the code in Basic > > TextInput... > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it dispatches 'textChange' and 'change' > > but > > > > is > > > > >>> only > > > > >>> > >> >> Bindable > > > > >>> > >> >> > via > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > 'change'. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > There is effort to keep them > > > > distinct/separate. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > (OT: It looks like the swf side needs > > some > > > > >>> > >> consistency > > > > >>> > >> >> in the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > html > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > setter > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > same as the text setter.) > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > So TextInput appears to have 2 distinct > > > > events > > > > >>> but > > > > >>> > >> only > > > > >>> > >> >> be > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Bindable > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > for one > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > ('change'). So I presume that to make > > that > > > > >>> support > > > > >>> > >> >> programmatic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > changes it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > would be by adding a bead to listen to > > the > > > > >>> > >> 'textChange' > > > > >>> > >> >> and > > > > >>> > >> >> > > redispatch > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > as > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > 'change' ? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Adding extra Bindable events adds > weight > > > > >>> because it > > > > >>> > >> >> affects > > > > >>> > >> >> > > binding > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > data, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > and creates more runtime support for > the > > > same > > > > >>> > feature > > > > >>> > >> >> in use > > > > >>> > >> >> > > cases > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > that may > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > not need it. I don't see how that can > be > > > > >>> > 'PAYG-ised' > > > > >>> > >> >> because > > > > >>> > >> >> > > binding > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > support for different event types is > > either > > > > >>> there > > > > >>> > at > > > > >>> > >> >> compile > > > > >>> > >> >> > > time or > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it is > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > not in the component. So if the above > is > > > true > > > > >>> for > > > > >>> > >> >> TextInput (at > > > > >>> > >> >> > > this > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > stage > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it's a guess/observation, I did not try > > > this > > > > >>> yet), > > > > >>> > >> then > > > > >>> > >> >> could > > > > >>> > >> >> > it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > not be > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > similar for selection based components? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > To me 'change' seems like something > > generic > > > > and > > > > >>> > does > > > > >>> > >> >> not sound > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > specific to > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > being user-initiated change. My > > > understanding > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> > that > > > > >>> > >> >> it just > > > > >>> > >> >> > > happens > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > to be > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > that way by default, unless you > configure > > > it > > > > to > > > > >>> > >> include > > > > >>> > >> >> > > programmatic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > changes via bead. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > If it is like this for Basic TextInput, > > why > > > > >>> can it > > > > >>> > >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> be the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > same for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > other components ? ( > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:32 AM Alex > > Harui > > > > >>> > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I took a quick look at > > > ArrayListSelection. > > > > >>> It > > > > >>> > >> could > > > > >>> > >> >> use some > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > improvements, such as only > dispatching > > a > > > > >>> single > > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectionChange event > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > instead of both selectedIndexChange > and > > > > >>> > >> >> selectedItemChange. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Some controller should dispatch the > > > > "change" > > > > >>> > event, > > > > >>> > >> >> not the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > model. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I took a quick look at List.as, (a > top > > > > level > > > > >>> > >> >> component). It > > > > >>> > >> >> > > should > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > have > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > bindable metadata that looks like > this: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [Bindable("change")] > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [Bindable("selectionChange")] > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > public function get > > > > >>> selectedIndex():int > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Similar for selectedItem. The > [Event] > > > > >>> metadata > > > > >>> > for > > > > >>> > >> >> List is > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > correct, It > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > should only list interactive events > > like > > > > >>> "change" > > > > >>> > >> and > > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > bindable > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > events > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > like selectionChange. This usually > > > > improves > > > > >>> > >> >> performance by > > > > >>> > >> >> > not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > having the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > UI react to setup. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Once all of those changes are made, > we > > > > should > > > > >>> > >> discuss > > > > >>> > >> >> any > > > > >>> > >> >> > > remaining > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > issues. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > My 2 cents, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > On 12/17/18, 10:14 AM, "Piotr > > Zarzycki" < > > > > >>> > >> >> > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Basic ArrayListSelection model > > > doesn't > > > > >>> > dispatch > > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >>> > >> >> > > event. I > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > believe > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > we > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > don't have to do this or rather > do > > > this > > > > >>> only > > > > >>> > if > > > > >>> > >> >> we really > > > > >>> > >> >> > > need > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it, for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > example if someone make > programatic > > > > >>> change of > > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectedIndex. - > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > This is > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > general problem how to do that ? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > If I change selectedIndex - my > > model > > > > >>> dispatch > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > selectedInexChanged - > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > where > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > should I catch it and dispatch > > > "change" > > > > >>> > event ? > > > > >>> > >> >> My though > > > > >>> > >> >> > > are > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > nowhere, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > unless someone wanted to do that > > and > > > > >>> have a > > > > >>> > >> bead. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > pon., 17 gru 2018 o 19:08 Alex > > Harui > > > > >>> > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > I may not be understanding your > > > > >>> problem. > > > > >>> > Not > > > > >>> > >> >> all > > > > >>> > >> >> > models > > > > >>> > >> >> > > will > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > dispatch a > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > change event, but it is hard to > > > > >>> imagine a > > > > >>> > >> >> selection > > > > >>> > >> >> > > model that > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > doesn't. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > On 12/17/18, 9:36 AM, "Piotr > > > > Zarzycki" > > > > >>> < > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > I will review your email > > again > > > > and > > > > >>> see > > > > >>> > >> what > > > > >>> > >> >> can I > > > > >>> > >> >> > do > > > > >>> > >> >> > > this. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > However > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > this one > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > is a second problem. First > > one > > > > was > > > > >>> > about > > > > >>> > >> >> > programmatic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > change > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > discover > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > - If > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > you are talking about that > - > > > Let > > > > me > > > > >>> > check > > > > >>> > >> >> your > > > > >>> > >> >> > > earlier > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > emails. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Piotr > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > pon., 17 gru 2018 o 18:30 > > Alex > > > > >>> Harui > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > <[email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > FWIW, I would much rather > > see > > > > >>> energy > > > > >>> > >> >> spent on > > > > >>> > >> >> > > trying to > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > implement the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > patterns I suggested > > earlier, > > > > >>> which > > > > >>> > >> will > > > > >>> > >> >> > hopefully > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > eliminate > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > need for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > DispatchChangeOnStartup. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > My 2 cents, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > -Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > On 12/17/18, 4:34 AM, > > "Piotr > > > > >>> > Zarzycki" > > > > >>> > >> < > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > I don't understand > this > > > > >>> sentence > > > > >>> > >> -> " > > > > >>> > >> >> If not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > we can > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > get > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > involved > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > pursues > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > problems > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > that are not real." - > > > What > > > > >>> do you > > > > >>> > >> >> mean here ? > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > Ok I can wait for > Alex > > > > >>> review. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > However your review > and > > > > look > > > > >>> into > > > > >>> > >> >> above > > > > >>> > >> >> > problem > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > doesn't > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > need > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Alex's > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > attention. This bead > > > > >>> > >> >> > (DispatchChangeOnStartup) > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > probably > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > won't > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > work > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > doesn't > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > matter if we fix > > > > programmatic > > > > >>> > >> change > > > > >>> > >> >> or not. > > > > >>> > >> >> > - > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Unless I > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > bring > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > back > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > dispatching "change" > > > event > > > > >>> from > > > > >>> > >> model > > > > >>> > >> >> - which > > > > >>> > >> >> > > rather > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > is not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > recommended in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > previous discussion. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > Thanks, Piotr > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > pon., 17 gru 2018 o > > 13:14 > > > > >>> Carlos > > > > >>> > >> >> Rovira < > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [email protected] > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > I think we should > > solve > > > > >>> first > > > > >>> > the > > > > >>> > >> >> > programatic > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > change so > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I can > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > test > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > branch and see > > > > >>> regressions. If > > > > >>> > >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> we can > > > > >>> > >> >> > get > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > involved in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > pursues > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > problems > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > that are not real. > I > > > > think > > > > >>> Alex > > > > >>> > >> >> missed this > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > discussion. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I'll > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > point > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > him in > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > this thread to see > if > > > he > > > > >>> can > > > > >>> > give > > > > >>> > >> >> his > > > > >>> > >> >> > opinion > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > about the > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > ways > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > you > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > proposed > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > in the initial > thread > > > > >>> email. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > El lun., 17 dic. > > 2018 a > > > > las > > > > >>> > >> 10:57, > > > > >>> > >> >> Piotr > > > > >>> > >> >> > > Zarzycki > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > (< > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > >>> >) > > > > >>> > >> >> escribió: > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I just noticed > that > > > if > > > > >>> model > > > > >>> > do > > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >>> > >> >> > > dispatch > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > change > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > event - > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > your > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > bead > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > DispatchChangeOnStartup > > > > >>> won't > > > > >>> > >> work > > > > >>> > >> >> > because > > > > >>> > >> >> > > it > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > simply > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > based on > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > dispatching > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > "change" event > > trough > > > > >>> model. > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I'm wondering > > whether > > > > it > > > > >>> > won't > > > > >>> > >> be > > > > >>> > >> >> enough > > > > >>> > >> >> > > if that > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > bead > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > listen > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > for > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > "beadsAdded" > (here > > I > > > > >>> think it > > > > >>> > >> >> should be > > > > >>> > >> >>
