I think we were contemplating some kind of mapping between qualified names and short-names.
> On Dec 16, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > we talked about that at some time. One option was not using all the fully > qualified name, but use just some sort name that could identify it without > problems. > Instead of "Button", we'll have "basic-button", "express-button", > "mx-button", "jewel-button" and so on... > > El lun., 16 dic. 2019 a las 10:00, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > >> >> >> On 12/15/19, 9:56 PM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Remind me why the button CSS is compiled as Button{} rather than >> .Button{}? >> >> IIRC, because we can. The selectors named after components (Button, >> TextInput, DataGrid, etc) were implemented as Type Selectors in Flex, so we >> were trying to approximate Type Selectors in Royale. Using Button's actual >> TypeSelector saves us the code and cycles of assigning a class selector >> name to each Button. >> >> I'm not sure how many plain Buttons are instantiated in Royale's Basic >> components, so in a custom theme, you might be able to not use Button Type >> Selector and put copies of what is there in the subclasses (TextButton, >> CloseButton, etc). >> >> That said, just the other day I was pondering the cost of using fully >> qualified names instead of short names (org_apache_royale_html_Button, >> instead of Button). >> >> HTH, >> -Alex >> >>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> The CSS referenced appears to be in the Basic theme, not the Basic >> SWC. Did you try using a different theme? >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/15/19, 1:09 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Well, others are in the same problem using excluded css hack. >> You're ok >>> since you're using specifically the UI Set that is in the library >> that all >>> other UI sets must use ;) >>> >>> Anyway, I thought all the fixes in the compiler discussed was >> already in >>> place. >>> >>> El dom., 15 dic. 2019 a las 19:36, Harbs (<[email protected]>) >> escribió: >>> >>>> I think we spoke about fixing this in the compiler. Moving Basic to >> a >>>> separate library would not solve this case because I’m actually >> using Basic. >>>> >>>>> On Dec 15, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Carlos Rovira < >> [email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Harbs, >>>>> >>>>> I think we should move Basic components along with its CSS to its >> own >>>>> library. The same as we need to separate MXRoyale/SparkRoyale from >>>>> HTTPSerice, RemoteObject or Validator (to say something) and other >> "non >>>>> visual classes". I started the latter effort some months ago as we >>>>> discussed in list, but I must left since I runned out of time to >> that >>>>> at the moment, and was no easy task to do, but hope to separate in >> libs >>>> one >>>>> day. >>>>> >>>>> Aboutt Basic: Actualy Basic lib should have just the code that is >> needed >>>>> for the rest of UI Sets, but not an UI Set that some people will >> never >>>> use. >>>>> I mean mainly TLCs and its CSS defs. >>>>> >>>>> Since we have Jewel UI Set, MDL UI Set, Express UI Set, I think >> Basic >>>>> should be the name of the library and have another name for the >>>>> common/foundation code for the rest of UI Sets. My proposal is to >> call >>>> it : >>>>> Foundation.swc or Common.swc >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime you can use the "exclude css hack". But that >> shouldn't be >>>>> the final goal (as I said is just a hack), just a way to jump over >> the >>>>> problem for now. I had this on an app that uses MXRoyale just for >>>>> RemoteObject communication and some validators and other utility >> classes. >>>>> Without that the styles are messed between Jewel and MXRoyale. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Carlos >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El dom., 15 dic. 2019 a las 12:47, Harbs (<[email protected]>) >>>> escribió: >>>>> >>>>>> We just ran into the problem of components stepping on each other >> again. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have both a Basic Button and a Button from another component >> set in >>>> our >>>>>> app. Basic css causes the following css to be written: >>>>>> >>>>>> Button { >>>>>> background-color: #f8f8f8; >>>>>> border-radius: 2px; >>>>>> border: 1px solid #808080; >>>>>> margin: 0px; >>>>>> padding: 4px; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Button:hover { >>>>>> background-color: #e8e8e8; >>>>>> border: 1px solid #808080; >>>>>> padding: 4px; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Button:active { >>>>>> background-color: #d8d8d8; >>>>>> border: 1px solid #808080; >>>>>> padding: 4px; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering these are selector css rather than class CSS, the css >> is >>>>>> changing the default css for our components which are set using >> class >>>> names. >>>>>> >>>>>> We’ve discussed this problem in the past and I’m not sure what >> the end >>>>>> plan (which was never implemented) was… >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, we’re changing the styling in our app, and we’re probably >> getting >>>>>> rid of basic buttons completely, but it’s going to be a process… >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> Harbs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carlos Rovira >>>>> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf37fa85524c74af9591d08d781ecb5fd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120726022091522&sdata=%2BkI7zba9Dr3AMcdqdlPX8ip%2FjzWZjNiYPh5C4YkY7Hk%3D&reserved=0 >> < >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf37fa85524c74af9591d08d781ecb5fd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120726022091522&sdata=%2BkI7zba9Dr3AMcdqdlPX8ip%2FjzWZjNiYPh5C4YkY7Hk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carlos Rovira >>> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf37fa85524c74af9591d08d781ecb5fd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120726022091522&sdata=%2BkI7zba9Dr3AMcdqdlPX8ip%2FjzWZjNiYPh5C4YkY7Hk%3D&reserved=0 >> < >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf37fa85524c74af9591d08d781ecb5fd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120726022091522&sdata=%2BkI7zba9Dr3AMcdqdlPX8ip%2FjzWZjNiYPh5C4YkY7Hk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira
