Hi Piotr, maybe Jewel List could need some internal changes. Don't know right now. But good to know your experience. In my case, I have many things on my plate now, so if other have free cycles and can take a look that'd be great :)
El vie., 8 feb. 2019 a las 17:30, Piotr Zarzycki (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Carlos, Greg, > > I checked and it looks like if I remove CHANGE event from that place - it > is affect List. CHANGE event won't work at all. I won't touch it, but if my > scenario is valid - future user who would like to resolve some problems > with list and have some actions from them - may have a problem. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > czw., 7 lut 2019 o 23:14 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > Hi Greg, > > > > Yes I think that is correct and I believe this is how it's working now. I > > just bump into that. Maybe my scenario have also some reasonable > meaning. I > > have List which has item renderer and inside that item renderer I'm > having > > CheckBox. > > > > I want to know in general which checkbox is selected, so do not go to > much > > in the details. > > > > When you have default item renderer and click on it - You have > > selectedIndex = 1,2 etc. Controller [1] in that case listen for click and > > make assign to selectedIndex. > > > > When you click on my item renderer - click won't be received by > > controller, cause you will simply clicking into CheckBox instead of item > > renderer itself, so no selectedIndex, no Change event etc. I resolved it > by > > dispatching "itemClick" once someone is clicking onto CheckBox - > Controller > > receiving event and making selctedIndex additionally dispatching [1]. > User > > receiving that Change event, but two times. By dispatching that event > > "itemClick" I'm probably not doing anything usual - that's why I didn't > > mention in the previous email that scenario. > > I have resolved that double dispatch by creating my own controller where > > CHANGE dispatch [1] is simply removed. > > > > Please do not think too much about my scenario and requirements - I'm > > asking whether it even needed when you have default item renderer. IMO I > > didn't have time too look into that myself, but maybe I will. > > > > I will take my controller (without change event) and simply assign to > > default List to see what is happen - Cause my List itself is also custom > > one. ;) > > > > [1] https://bit.ly/2GeQ5En > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > czw., 7 lut 2019 o 20:44 Greg Dove <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > >> Hi Piotr, Carlos, > >> > >> I expect to have time next week to spend on this and other tasks that I > >> have been hoping to get to for Royale, although I expect to focus on > >> AMFBinaryData first. > >> > >> Piotr, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the general approach we got > to > >> was that : > >> > >> -the model should dispatch individual 'selectionChanged', > >> 'dataProviderChanged', etc directly from the host component for binding > >> support, and > >> -user initiated changes/interaction should dispatch 'change' event, > which > >> can occur alongside a subset of 'selectionChanged' events, for example. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:58 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > [email protected] > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Ok I will check. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Piotr > >> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 12:40 PM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > 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, > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
