Hi, yes, I though so too El lun., 16 dic. 2019 a las 11:20, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió:
> 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 > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
