Hi Piotr, could you check in Tour De Jewel if removing that sentence makes some regression in examples? (I mean example with Lists and other deviated like ComboBox that use List)
If you don't see anything I could try as well in our app and see if there's some possible use case don't covered in TDJ and in that case maybe we can see if that could be refactored some way thanks! Carlos El jue., 7 feb. 2019 a las 11:02, Piotr Zarzycki (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Greg, > > I'm progressing with some application and discovered that we are > dispatching CHANGE event from here [1] - I'm wondering whether we really > need it. Model is being update in that operation - I believe it should be > enough. > > Just to make it clear there is no issue - I mean CHANGE event doesn't fire > two times etc. because of that. I didn't check whether it makes any > difference. > > [1] https://bit.ly/2GeQ5En > > Thanks, > Piotr > > pon., 24 gru 2018 o 11:51 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > 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 > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
