Hi Harbs, I thought it was a technical decision. As I go over components I think it is a power feature for advanced users. People that master Royale can add a j:List and use a js:ArrayList directly to define the data inline (this is of course more a case for rapid prototyping of interfaces than a real use case in a big app). Most people use containers to directly add childs without knowing they are using "mxmlContent" really.
In Jewel Button, we have for a long time "text" as default property, but other components like TextInput. will benefit from having beads to add direct optional functionality. For example, in IconButton, since is a button, "text" is default, but maybe "icon" could be here the default (or not). A power user will be faster coding when they know what default property is the one for a particular component, and beads could be default if we define that way at UIBase level. So, IMHO, I don't think we should restrict default properties to direct childs, since it doesn't seem to me the real concept. At least, if not something others like, maybe I can think on set that way at "StyledUIBase" level for Jewel (stil to analyze a bit more). Thoughts? El dom., 23 ago. 2020 a las 9:52, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > I don’t like the idea of making beads the default property. To me the > default property is used for some kind of children which changes from > component to component. Beads do not fit that concept. It’ll also be > confusing if some elements take beads as content and others don’t. > > My $0.02, > Harbs > > > On Aug 23, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > there's some reason we don't make "beads" the default property for > UIBase? > > I think that will allow to be less verbose in mxml and remove many lines > > for end users. > > > > Other components like Group override in favor of "mxmlContent" or List > for > > "dataProvider" > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
