Hi Chris, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
IMHO, not always a "strand" is a "visual component". This relation is not always true. a strand could be a non visual component (for example the implementation of RemoteObject in the Network library). And a bead could be a strand itself. I think the term component is right in most cases and accomplish a meaning purpose, but strand/beads concept comes to give another subset of meaning just my opinion about this. Carlos El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 9:23, Chris Velevitch (<[email protected]>) escribió: > The use of the terms "strands" and "beads" still doesn't make sense to > me because they are concepts I have never heard before and it is > creating a barrier to acceptance and deepens the learning curve. As > far as I can tell, it's something to do with visual/UI components. > > The section "Strands and Beads" should ideally be titled "Visual > Components" because that section is about visual components and is > alluding to the fact visual components are standalone microcosms of > the MVC pattern and the ability to treat the model, view and > controller as plugins to the component. The statement that components > are "strands" is, in my mind, misleading because it doesn't make sense > to interchange terms components and strands if a strand is a > component. In fact, diving into the code, the "addBead" function gives > the "bead" a reference to the component the "bead" is being added to. > > It is clear from the documentation that "beads" are "plugins" and the > documentation should be talking about extending components with > plugins. All references to "bead" should be replaced with "plugin" and > all references to "strand" be replaced with either "hostComponent", or > "parent" or appropriately something else. > > We seem to be neglecting the rich heritage that we have gotten from > Adobe Flex and I don't see the point giving existing concepts new > names. > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
