Re: Container change

[yishayw]

Carlos Rovira-2 wrote
>  This
> have many advantages, the most visible is a 40% drop  off in Apps file
> size
> that uses Jewel, since Basic things that never was used are there any
> more.
> Another thing is that Basic things that could mess the intended behaviour
> in Jewel will never happen since is not present anymore.

This is what I don't understand. Why would moving classes between packages
make a difference in app size? As I understand it, the compiler resolves the
dependency tree without caring which packages are involved.




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #779

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


--
[...truncated 1.77 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.Language
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 
'org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase depends on 

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #778

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


--
[...truncated 1.76 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.Language
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 
'org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase depends on 

Re: Container change

[Alex Harui]

Hi Carlos,

IMO, you are getting resistance from other committers because you are 
recommending changes that don't have sufficient technical merit.  What is the 
technical advantage to the Jewel project not having a dependency on the Basic 
project?  I continue to think you are too fixated on project dependencies when 
the only thing that matters is class dependencies.  Get the class dependencies 
right and don't worry about project dependencies.  It is pretty rare that 
copying code is a recommended practice, especially for Royale where we are 
trying to use composition.  Also, you are recommending copying "just-in-case" a 
Jewel class diverges from a Basic class.  In Royale, those divergences should 
be managed via composition, refactoring, and subclassing, and not copying, and 
only when divergence is actually required, not just-in-case.

I don't have any problem with changing package names of some classes at this 
point in time, but we still want the organization of the libraries to make 
sense.  So if you put Group in the Core library regardless of which package it 
is in, you are saying that just about every implementation of a random group of 
child objects will want to just the implementation in Group.as.  I'm not sure 
that's true, and that kind of thing deserves discussion before it happens.  
Just because some other project wants to use a class that is currently in Basic 
does not mean that class should be in Core.

On the other hand, I don't agree with Yishay's and Harb's concerns about the 
NodeElementBase having to subclass Group in order to get MXML children.  The 
ability to specify children in MXML can be added to any class.  What else does 
NodeElementBase.as use from Group/GroupBase?

I also want to remind folks that all of the classes that are in Basic but in 
the org.apache.royale.core package used to be in the Core project before we had 
to fork them for the element-wrapping experiment.  So, IMO, it is fine to move 
every class from Basic that is in org.apache.royale.core back to Core if we 
still agree that almost every implementation will leverage that contract or 
functionality.  But Group isn't one of those classes.  Should it be?  I don't 
have a set opinion right now, but I'm leaning towards no.  Group has a 
particular opinion about its lifecycle.  We'd have to agree that it would be 
rare for someone to not want that lifecycle.

Another thing to note is that some aspects of what is in GroupBase is due to 
trying to save time by avoiding making changes to the compiler's handling of 
states and transitions.

We could stop and do a major refactor/reorganization.  I'd rather not spend the 
time on that right now, but I'd also rather not spend the time dealing with 
confusion and disagreement over what goes in what project/library.  Just 
because we reference libraries like Collections and Network from other 
libraries as fundamental building blocks does not make them Core, just "shared" 
or "reused".  I hesitate to use the word "common" because too many things fall 
under that word.  Collections and Network are just an implementation tuned 
towards Flex-familiar users.  It is not clear that every Royale app will need 
or want to use their code.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 5/9/18, 10:13 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" 
 wrote:

Now, all that makes more sense...

So is ANT what is failing, but that should not be that way, since there's
no changes to interdependencies of libraries. If ANT was working before now
should work as well. If not I think is time to get what could be wrong in
ANT building. I could remove some Basic dependencies in Maven and saw that
by removing Group dependency from NodeBaseElement, some other projects need
Basic. I think that's what you should look at. Add Basic to those projects
that was getting the code due to HTML Basic dependency.

What we have here is not a problem of a refactor, but a hidden problem in
the way we build with ANT.

Or at least is what I see for what Piotr says in his email. I don't have
ANT setting up in my system, and I always build with maven to ensure all is
working.

Carlos


2018-05-09 18:58 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing
> for several days already.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from
> > Basic.
> > > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied 
classes.
> > It
> > > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful
> > Bead

Re: 1005 code error with AMF/RemoteObject while trying to access my java backend

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Carlos,

What are you seeing in browser console?

Piotr

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 7:27 PM Carlos Rovira  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to make a test connection between our Flex Backend Application
> with AMF and a Royale test App. I have all set up and I'm finding a similar
> problem that Doug777 found in an old Flexjs thread [1]
>
> I'm getting
>
> { code: -1005, message: "Invalid response.", detail: "", data: null }
>
> In that thread there's no solution to that problem, but seems Doug get it
> working for what I see in new threads.
> As Piotr suggest in that thread, I removed the amf.js inject html that is
> no more needed, and all worked ok.
>
> @Doug777 what was the problem with 1005 error code? and what did you do to
> solve it?
>
> If I can get this working, I can start our first POC with Apache Royale to
> migrate our App, so this is crucial for us! Any help is welcome!
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Carlos
>
>
> [1] http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-
> RemoteObject-Error-with-ColdFusion-td16035.html
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

1005 code error with AMF/RemoteObject while trying to access my java backend

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

I'm trying to make a test connection between our Flex Backend Application
with AMF and a Royale test App. I have all set up and I'm finding a similar
problem that Doug777 found in an old Flexjs thread [1]

I'm getting

{ code: -1005, message: "Invalid response.", detail: "", data: null }

In that thread there's no solution to that problem, but seems Doug get it
working for what I see in new threads.
As Piotr suggest in that thread, I removed the amf.js inject html that is
no more needed, and all worked ok.

@Doug777 what was the problem with 1005 error code? and what did you do to
solve it?

If I can get this working, I can start our first POC with Apache Royale to
migrate our App, so this is crucial for us! Any help is welcome!

Thanks in advance!

Carlos


[1] http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-
RemoteObject-Error-with-ColdFusion-td16035.html

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Now, all that makes more sense...

So is ANT what is failing, but that should not be that way, since there's
no changes to interdependencies of libraries. If ANT was working before now
should work as well. If not I think is time to get what could be wrong in
ANT building. I could remove some Basic dependencies in Maven and saw that
by removing Group dependency from NodeBaseElement, some other projects need
Basic. I think that's what you should look at. Add Basic to those projects
that was getting the code due to HTML Basic dependency.

What we have here is not a problem of a refactor, but a hidden problem in
the way we build with ANT.

Or at least is what I see for what Piotr says in his email. I don't have
ANT setting up in my system, and I always build with maven to ensure all is
working.

Carlos


2018-05-09 18:58 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing
> for several days already.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from
> > Basic.
> > > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes.
> > It
> > > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful
> > Bead
> > > and you need it you will copy it.
> > >
> >
> > just explain a bit more in my response to Yishay email few seconds ago,
> > you'll see is not only about size
> > Thre's much more involved.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed.
> > >
> > > It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those
> > > changes if they were the cause.
> > >
> >
> > I'm watching closely that builds doesn't break. Seems right now the build
> > is broke, but just the previous one was successful and there's not code
> > changes between, so I suppose is something not related to the code. I
> > always pass maven to all framework and examples when something that
> implies
> > moving classes or changing names or packages are in place, ensuring that
> > all compiles without problems.
> >
> >
> > > In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should
> be
> > > voted or waited till review on separate branch.
> > >
> >
> > That's completely right. 1.0 means a before and after. We are working
> hard
> > to make all things assemble nicely and work flawlessly. And as we think
> we
> > get that point, for me will be the right moment to make a 1.0 release.
> And
> > that means that any change should be more difficult to do, and will need
> > more consensus. Anyway, in that case, that would means for all of us the
> > same that is happen now. Changes use to imply that applications should
> > update to work accordingly to those ones. But in our case the changes are
> > very easy to do. Think in Java, and how difficult is change from Java 5
> > -6-7-8... or Spring Framework... it's very very difficult compared to a
> few
> > changes here. But our code is still beta quality, and we can expect to
> stay
> > without change a single line of code, and expect our user base grows.
> > That's utopic from all  points of view.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
> > >
> > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to
> > extend
> > > > Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently,
> > but
> > > > because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> > > > previously worked.
> > > >
> > > > Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good
> thing
> > > > that
> > > > there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions
> and
> > > ask
> > > > questions. I think this should be encouraged.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your
> > motivation
> > > > here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages
> > depend
> > > on
> > > > which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> > > > difference?
> > > >
> > > > Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference
> maker.
> > > >
> > > > Yishay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > *
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

If HTML needs Group, that means Group is core, and that means it needs to
go to Core. If not, I can use HTML without link Basic, and btw, bringing
lots of things that Jewel Apps will never need and interfiere with the
normal behavior.



2018-05-09 18:40 GMT+02:00 Harbs :

> I see things a bit differently than you.
>
> Basic actually has two different “parts”. One is the Components (i.e.
> Label, List, Dropdown, etc.) and the other is “core” functionality and
> optional functionality (i.e. UIBase, Group, many beads, views etc.)
>

As I stated many mails ago in this thread, maybe the problem is that we
need a intermediate library between Core and Basic, but I think if that
would be needed something more simple is to make it go to Core. Or said in
other words...If we have "core" package and basic and "html" package in
Core, that is a clue that something is wrong in the separation we are
trying to do.


>
> The first part of Basic is not really core, but the second part is. I
> don’t see the benefit of pulling out the “core” part of Basic and put it
> into the Core library. I definitely don’t see a benefit to duplicating
> these core pieces in other component sets.
>

I don't want to duplicate. duplication is only a colateral behavior of the
refactor. Some of that clases will evolve with Jewel since will serve to
what Jewel tries to do. Others maybe could be removed if we refine more
this refactor. Others are simple the implementation of some core class and
is normal to have one for UI set



>
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
>
> > On May 9, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the motivations: Royale has many libraries that are somewhat
> the
> > core. One is Core (of course) and then others orbit but are optional
> > (Collections, Binding, Network,...) depending of your needs you link one
> or
> > another.
> >
> > Then we have ui sets (Basic, Jewel, MDL, CreateJS, Flat,...). Until now
> all
> > sets was Basic dependent.
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Piotr Zarzycki]

We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing
for several days already.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira  wrote:

> Hi Piotr,
>
> 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Carlos,
> >
> > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from
> Basic.
> > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes.
> It
> > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful
> Bead
> > and you need it you will copy it.
> >
>
> just explain a bit more in my response to Yishay email few seconds ago,
> you'll see is not only about size
> Thre's much more involved.
>
>
> >
> > After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed.
> >
> > It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those
> > changes if they were the cause.
> >
>
> I'm watching closely that builds doesn't break. Seems right now the build
> is broke, but just the previous one was successful and there's not code
> changes between, so I suppose is something not related to the code. I
> always pass maven to all framework and examples when something that implies
> moving classes or changing names or packages are in place, ensuring that
> all compiles without problems.
>
>
> > In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should be
> > voted or waited till review on separate branch.
> >
>
> That's completely right. 1.0 means a before and after. We are working hard
> to make all things assemble nicely and work flawlessly. And as we think we
> get that point, for me will be the right moment to make a 1.0 release. And
> that means that any change should be more difficult to do, and will need
> more consensus. Anyway, in that case, that would means for all of us the
> same that is happen now. Changes use to imply that applications should
> update to work accordingly to those ones. But in our case the changes are
> very easy to do. Think in Java, and how difficult is change from Java 5
> -6-7-8... or Spring Framework... it's very very difficult compared to a few
> changes here. But our code is still beta quality, and we can expect to stay
> without change a single line of code, and expect our user base grows.
> That's utopic from all  points of view.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
> >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to
> extend
> > > Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently,
> but
> > > because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> > > previously worked.
> > >
> > > Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing
> > > that
> > > there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and
> > ask
> > > questions. I think this should be encouraged.
> > >
> > > Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your
> motivation
> > > here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages
> depend
> > on
> > > which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> > > difference?
> > >
> > > Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker.
> > >
> > > Yishay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Re: Container change

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Me neither.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:40 PM Harbs  wrote:

> I see things a bit differently than you.
>
> Basic actually has two different “parts”. One is the Components (i.e.
> Label, List, Dropdown, etc.) and the other is “core” functionality and
> optional functionality (i.e. UIBase, Group, many beads, views etc.)
>
> The first part of Basic is not really core, but the second part is. I
> don’t see the benefit of pulling out the “core” part of Basic and put it
> into the Core library. I definitely don’t see a benefit to duplicating
> these core pieces in other component sets.
>
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
>
> > On May 9, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the motivations: Royale has many libraries that are somewhat
> the
> > core. One is Core (of course) and then others orbit but are optional
> > (Collections, Binding, Network,...) depending of your needs you link one
> or
> > another.
> >
> > Then we have ui sets (Basic, Jewel, MDL, CreateJS, Flat,...). Until now
> all
> > sets was Basic dependent.
>
>

Re: Container change

[Harbs]

I don’t understand this.

HTML needs Group which is in Basic. That’s not a separation (and I don’t see 
why it should be).

> On May 9, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
> 
> In the way I solved, now HTML works as expected and still we're maintaining
> the separation with Basic.

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Yishayw,

right, I for that reason I said you were right. Sometimes when a refactor
is done, maybe some side case is not seen at the time of doing it. That was
the case for nesting in html. For that reason I do my best to solve it
ASAP.

In the way I solved, now HTML works as expected and still we're maintaining
the separation with Basic. I only say that we should not fear changes,
since use to be for the good, and changes should involve to adapt to them.
We're no in 0.9.3 to 0.9.4 and still with low user base, so, now is the
time to make the changes to structure and organization we need. Alex,
Peter, and others have comment in the recent past about that, and that's
the reason of a change like this one.

I'm doing my best to try to not break things, but only say, that in case I
break something, I expect you all have patience and help me to fix it,
while keeping the motivation of the changes.

Regarding the motivations: Royale has many libraries that are somewhat the
core. One is Core (of course) and then others orbit but are optional
(Collections, Binding, Network,...) depending of your needs you link one or
another.

Then we have ui sets (Basic, Jewel, MDL, CreateJS, Flat,...). Until now all
sets was Basic dependent. I started Jewel in that way. Then after much
conversations with Alex, I see that was not the right way to go, and prefer
to extend UIBase, instead of the control in Basic (in case it exits). Alex
said many times that Basic was only a ui set, and as we evolve others could
be developed. Now, that's real, and Jewel is no more Basic dependent. This
have many advantages, the most visible is a 40% drop  off in Apps file size
that uses Jewel, since Basic things that never was used are there any more.
Another thing is that Basic things that could mess the intended behaviour
in Jewel will never happen since is not present anymore. Other is that I
can develop freely Jewel without having to deal with Basic and possible
things I could break to make Jewel work.

That at the cost of a few little problems like we are having. But expect we
solve it all, or maybe we could find one or another in the following
days...at least after several days, seems there's no big problems with this
refactor, only few ones.

thanks for your kinky works about Jewel! :)

Carls





2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw :

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to extend
> Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently, but
> because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> previously worked.
>
> Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing
> that
> there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and ask
> questions. I think this should be encouraged.
>
> Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your motivation
> here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages depend on
> which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> difference?
>
> Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker.
>
> Yishay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Carlos,

>From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from Basic.
Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes. It
looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful Bead
and you need it you will copy it.

After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed.

It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those
changes if they were the cause.

In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should be
voted or waited till review on separate branch.

Thanks,
Piotr


2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw :

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to extend
> Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently, but
> because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> previously worked.
>
> Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing
> that
> there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and ask
> questions. I think this should be encouraged.
>
> Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your motivation
> here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages depend on
> which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> difference?
>
> Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker.
>
> Yishay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*

Re: Container change

[yishayw]

Hi Carlos,

Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to extend
Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently, but
because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
previously worked.

Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing that
there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and ask
questions. I think this should be encouraged.

Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your motivation
here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages depend on
which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
difference?

Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker.

Yishay

 





--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Harbs,

I solved that is some emails after my proposal about GroupBase. I think all
is ok now

Thanks!


El El mié, 9 may 2018 a las 16:03, Harbs  escribió:

>
> > On May 9, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
> > Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
> > problems.
>
> I said that I wasn’t sure why it extended Group. I didn’t mean that I was
> sure it didn’t need to extend it. Sorry about that...
>
> > Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind
> of
> > Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?
>
> I didn’t try, but looking at the code, it does not look GroupBase will
> work. The mxml initialization code is in Group. I’m pretty sure that’s
> going to be needed for using Div in mxml with children elements.

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Harbs]

> On May 9, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
> 
> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
> problems.

I said that I wasn’t sure why it extended Group. I didn’t mean that I was sure 
it didn’t need to extend it. Sorry about that...

> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind of
> Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?

I didn’t try, but looking at the code, it does not look GroupBase will work. 
The mxml initialization code is in Group. I’m pretty sure that’s going to be 
needed for using Div in mxml with children elements.

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Piotr,

I'm trying to get a new UI set that had the best quality I can. I think if
I need to copy a bead will be for a good reason to make it happen. A copy
of a class that at first moment could be equal to other one, can get very
different as time passed. The important thing here is if people should link
a different UI set to make work the choose UI set. For me the response is
clearly: Not. If people start mixing, should be due to other reasons,
mainly, the need of using something they don't have in a particular UI set.

I'm not questioning things others are doing, but seems my actions use to be
questioned. Maybe since I'm touching many things since I want this project
to make significant progress and for tha reason I'm investing full time on
this. Maybe is normal some things will be questioned, but I think is better
to think with an open mind and try to see the bigger picture. At the end we
want a great technology in place, and I'm sure that each one here has
different things in mind. But is important to keep in mind that no body is
in the possession of the truth, and is most important to work as a team
than starting to question each things others do. I don't like to do that
with others, so I hope you guys don't do the same with me.

Sincerily, don't think this kind of conversations will make us go forward.

Thanks

Carlos



2018-05-09 15:44 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Do you think that in the future you will also start copying Beads not only
> UI classes ?
>
> 2018-05-09 15:36 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > 4 or 5 I think. some are temporal, others are necessary since are the
> > implementation of a particular UI set. At this time that class can be
> > somewhat identical to the Basic one, but there are plans for some of them
> > to be modified fo Jewel particular purposes
> >
> > 2018-05-09 13:24 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > How many classes you had to copy from Basic to Jewel so far ?
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > 2018-05-09 13:15 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> > >
> > > > I fixed this. Now we have what we all want.
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-09 13:01 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> > > >
> > > > > btw,
> > > > >
> > > > > for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure
> > nothing
> > > > > broken:
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps .
> > *SUCCESS*
> > > > > [  1.042 s]
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ...
> > *FAILURE*
> > > > > [  0.321 s]
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 ..
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery .
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ...
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile .
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection .
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network 
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage 
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML 
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ...
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF 
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite .
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ...
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT
> > *SKIPPED*
> > > > >
> > > > > GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting
> > > functionality.
> > > > > I think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really
> > Core
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira  >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only
> due
> > to
> > > > >> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
> > > > >> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend
> > > Group.
> > > > >> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't
> > see
> > > > >> problems.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends
> some
> > > kind
> > > > >> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in
> > > core?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one?
> > right?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We 

Re: Container change

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Do you think that in the future you will also start copying Beads not only
UI classes ?

2018-05-09 15:36 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi Piotr,
>
> 4 or 5 I think. some are temporal, others are necessary since are the
> implementation of a particular UI set. At this time that class can be
> somewhat identical to the Basic one, but there are plans for some of them
> to be modified fo Jewel particular purposes
>
> 2018-05-09 13:24 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Carlos,
> >
> > How many classes you had to copy from Basic to Jewel so far ?
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2018-05-09 13:15 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> > > I fixed this. Now we have what we all want.
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > 2018-05-09 13:01 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> > >
> > > > btw,
> > > >
> > > > for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure
> nothing
> > > > broken:
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps .
> *SUCCESS*
> > > > [  1.042 s]
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ...
> *FAILURE*
> > > > [  0.321 s]
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 ..
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery .
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ...
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile .
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection .
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network 
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage 
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML 
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ...
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF 
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite .
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ...
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT
> *SKIPPED*
> > > >
> > > > GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting
> > functionality.
> > > > I think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really
> Core
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> > > >
> > > >> Hi
> > > >>
> > > >> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due
> to
> > > >> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
> > > >> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend
> > Group.
> > > >> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't
> see
> > > >> problems.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some
> > kind
> > > >> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in
> > core?
> > > >>
> > > >> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one?
> right?
> > > >>
> > > >> We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go
> > fixing
> > > >> them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other
> cases,
> > > can
> > > >> be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache
> > Royale,
> > > >> can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have
> the
> > > >> general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a
> > > matter
> > > >> of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need
> separation
> > of
> > > >> Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be
> > charged
> > > >> with things that are not really Core.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
> > > >>
> > > >>> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue
> > this
> > > >>> discussion, but we need our app to work...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

4 or 5 I think. some are temporal, others are necessary since are the
implementation of a particular UI set. At this time that class can be
somewhat identical to the Basic one, but there are plans for some of them
to be modified fo Jewel particular purposes

2018-05-09 13:24 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Carlos,
>
> How many classes you had to copy from Basic to Jewel so far ?
>
> Piotr
>
> 2018-05-09 13:15 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
> > I fixed this. Now we have what we all want.
> > thanks
> >
> > 2018-05-09 13:01 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> > > btw,
> > >
> > > for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure nothing
> > > broken:
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps . *SUCCESS*
> > > [  1.042 s]
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ... *FAILURE*
> > > [  0.321 s]
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 .. *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery . *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ... *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile . *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection . *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network  *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage  *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML  *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ... *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF  *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite . *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ... *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT *SKIPPED*
> > >
> > > GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting
> functionality.
> > > I think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really Core
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> > >
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due to
> > >> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
> > >> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend
> Group.
> > >> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
> > >> problems.
> > >>
> > >> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some
> kind
> > >> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in
> core?
> > >>
> > >> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one? right?
> > >>
> > >> We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go
> fixing
> > >> them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other cases,
> > can
> > >> be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache
> Royale,
> > >> can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have the
> > >> general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a
> > matter
> > >> of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need separation
> of
> > >> Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be
> charged
> > >> with things that are not really Core.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
> > >>
> > >>> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue
> this
> > >>> discussion, but we need our app to work...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Carlos Rovira
> > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #776

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


Changes:

[carlosrovira] remove amf.js since is not needed anymore

--
[...truncated 1.76 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.Language
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #775

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


Changes:

[carlosrovira] put published text in example

[carlosrovira] Return Group to Core since is Core and HTML needs them.

[carlosrovira] this was to test that html accept nesting again. not needed 
anymore

--
[...truncated 1.76 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

Re: Container change

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Carlos,

How many classes you had to copy from Basic to Jewel so far ?

Piotr

2018-05-09 13:15 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :

> I fixed this. Now we have what we all want.
> thanks
>
> 2018-05-09 13:01 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
> > btw,
> >
> > for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure nothing
> > broken:
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps . *SUCCESS*
> > [  1.042 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ... *FAILURE*
> > [  0.321 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 .. *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery . *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ... *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile . *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection . *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network  *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage  *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML  *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ... *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF  *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite . *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ... *SKIPPED*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT *SKIPPED*
> >
> > GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting functionality.
> > I think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really Core
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due to
> >> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
> >> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
> >> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind
> >> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?
> >>
> >> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one? right?
> >>
> >> We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go fixing
> >> them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other cases,
> can
> >> be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache Royale,
> >> can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have the
> >> general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a
> matter
> >> of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need separation of
> >> Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be charged
> >> with things that are not really Core.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
> >>
> >>> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue this
> >>> discussion, but we need our app to work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

I fixed this. Now we have what we all want.
thanks

2018-05-09 13:01 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :

> btw,
>
> for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure nothing
> broken:
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps . *SUCCESS*
> [  1.042 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ... *FAILURE*
> [  0.321 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 .. *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery . *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ... *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile . *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection . *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network  *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage  *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML  *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ... *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF  *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite . *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ... *SKIPPED*
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT *SKIPPED*
>
> GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting functionality.
> I think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really Core
>
>
>
> 2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
>> Hi
>>
>> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due to
>> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
>> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
>> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
>> problems.
>>
>> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind
>> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?
>>
>> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one? right?
>>
>> We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go fixing
>> them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other cases, can
>> be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache Royale,
>> can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have the
>> general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a matter
>> of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need separation of
>> Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be charged
>> with things that are not really Core.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
>>
>>> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue this
>>> discussion, but we need our app to work...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

btw,

for a change like this I think you should pass maven to ensure nothing
broken:

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: GoogleMaps . *SUCCESS* [
1.042 s]

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML ... *FAILURE* [
0.321 s]

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: HTML5 .. *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: JQuery . *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Language ... *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Material Design Lite *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Mobile . *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Reflection . *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Network  *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Storage  *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: XML  *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Text ... *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: TLF  *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: RoyaleSite . *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: MXRoyale ... *SKIPPED*

[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Jewel 0.9.4-SNAPSHOT *SKIPPED*

GroupBase is not a solution since doesn't have the nesting functionality. I
think we have only one way: Pass Group to Core, since is really Core



2018-05-09 12:47 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi
>
> the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due to
> "NodeElementBase extends Group"
> was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
> Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
> problems.
>
> Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind
> of Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?
>
> @Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one? right?
>
> We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go fixing
> them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other cases, can
> be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache Royale,
> can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have the
> general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a matter
> of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need separation of
> Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be charged
> with things that are not really Core.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :
>
>> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue this
>> discussion, but we need our app to work...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #774

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


Changes:

[harbs] Changed Multiline whitespace to pre-wrap

--
[...truncated 1.76 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.Language
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 
'org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase'
  

Re: Container change

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi

the problem was that HTML library was baking Basic library only due to
"NodeElementBase extends Group"
was Harbs how told me that NodeElementBase was not need to extend Group.
Then I changed it and looking into examples for this change didn't see
problems.

Is normal something arise now, so NodeElementBase must extends some kind of
Group. Did you try to simply try to extend GroupBase that is in core?

@Harbs, about to revert I think you refer to this concrete one? right?

We should continue looking if more problems arise, and try to go fixing
them. Sometimes the solution I did will be not right, in other cases, can
be a matter of adapt you applications. Have in mind, that Apache Royale,
can be modeled against a single Application (yours) and must have the
general purpose in mind over the personal interest. So for me it's a matter
of balance. The key point to pursue finaly is that we need separation of
Basic ui set from the rest of Royale to avoid to make people be charged
with things that are not really Core.

Thanks





2018-05-09 11:29 GMT+02:00 yishayw :

> I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue this
> discussion, but we need our app to work...
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Apache Royale new app

[Carlos Rovira]

That's great news Angelo!

great!! :)

2018-05-09 12:13 GMT+02:00 Angelo Lazzari :

> I everyone and congrats for everything you are doing in the Apache Royale
> adventure!
>
> We have to start a new app and we will 99% do it in Apache Royale!!! YEAH
>
> But we have a few questions just to be sure we won't crash the customer's
> dreams:
>
> - in Apache Flex we could re-use the app code to create the web app too,
> that is completely like the app but, in the browser. Can we do the same
> think in Apache Royale? I think yes and in a more simple way that
> Flex...but i just wanted to be sure.
>

For sure, you get html/js/css so it's more easy nowadays to integrate it
browser or as an App with Cordova or AIR.


>
> - in the current Apache Royale version can we use the map item and
> communicate with it, for example, to draw an circle area on it  based on a
> slider value?... can we put pin on it?
>

Maybe better others here respond this. I think we have some ways to draw a
circle, but sincerely I didn't look into that.
But seems something as well doable without much problem.


>
> - in the current Apache Royale version can we get GPS values and do
> pictures using the mobile camera?
>

I think that is integration with mobile, that's out of Royale scope (like
in Flex), is something in the realms of AIR/Cordova


>
> - push notifications: are they managed?
>

I think we don't have now push notifications, but seems to me something to
mashup like JSON/AMF or other third party libraries.
If you think in a generic library, you can develop and contribute it to the
project if you want.


>
> - animations: are they managed?
>

My opinion on animations, effects and transitions is that should be done
mostly on CSS since is the way to do this nowadays.
Maybe in SWF part that will requiere more code, but if you target HTML, I
think you have the pieces now.
In the other hand, to make more creative things like in pure Flash (like
when in old days we integrate Flash with Flex apps), I think
you can take a look at the side project "spriteflexjs" that is mainly the
recreation of the flash functionality using apache royale compiler.
(I continue thinking that this project should be donated and integrated
some day as part of apache royale...


>
> - as we will publish both Android and IOS app do you see any critical thing
> about it?
>
>
Cordova/AIR



> and the final BIG question: do you think apache is ready to a production
> use?
>
>
I think the technology is now ready. But you must to think that some of
your needs can still not in Apache Royale, but is easy to work on it and
contribute your work to help fill the last holes we could have. For
example, I need for my app a DateField and Autocomplete controls...the
first is in Basic, and the other I know how to do it...it's a matter of
doing! :), so I'll be doing in the following days ;)

The same applies to the rest.

Thank you Angelo and great to see another App made in Royale coming! :)

Hope we could soon start to fill the showcase page in our website with all
this new Apache Royale Apps! :)



> thank you very much
> Angelo
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Apache Royale new app

[Harbs]

Definitely. We have quite a few of our clients already using our Royale app in 
production.
https://marketinginflection.com/printui-demo.php 


We’ve had lots of positive feedback on our Royale app.

It’s *much* more performant than our Flash app ever was. Some of that is 
inherent to Royale and some of it was enabled by browser performance measuring 
tools. It’s way more performant than a much simpler Angular HTML app too.

HTH,
Harbs

> On May 9, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Angelo Lazzari  wrote:
> 
> and the final BIG question: do you think apache is ready to a production
> use?

Apache Royale new app

[Angelo Lazzari]

I everyone and congrats for everything you are doing in the Apache Royale
adventure!

We have to start a new app and we will 99% do it in Apache Royale!!! YEAH

But we have a few questions just to be sure we won't crash the customer's
dreams:

- in Apache Flex we could re-use the app code to create the web app too,
that is completely like the app but, in the browser. Can we do the same
think in Apache Royale? I think yes and in a more simple way that
Flex...but i just wanted to be sure.

- in the current Apache Royale version can we use the map item and
communicate with it, for example, to draw an circle area on it  based on a
slider value?... can we put pin on it?

- in the current Apache Royale version can we get GPS values and do
pictures using the mobile camera?

- push notifications: are they managed?

- animations: are they managed?

- as we will publish both Android and IOS app do you see any critical thing
about it?

and the final BIG question: do you think apache is ready to a production
use?

thank you very much
Angelo

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #773

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


Changes:

[yishayjobs] NodeElementBase should allow nesting

--
[...truncated 1.76 MB...]
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.List
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IRollOverModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ISelectionModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.List'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.List depends on 
org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ListPresentationModel
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 'org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer'
[mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer depends on 
org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.DataItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IChild
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IDataProviderItemRendererMapper
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRenderer
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IItemRendererClassFactory
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.IListView
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.core.ValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.Event
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemAddedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.events.ItemRemovedEvent
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.loadBeadFromValuesManager
[mxmlc] 

 removing require: org.apache.royale.utils.Language
[mxmlc] Dependencies calculated for 
'org.apache.royale.core.DataContainerBase'
 

Re: Container change

[yishayw]

I changed it back so NodeElementBase extends Group. Let's continue this
discussion, but we need our app to work...



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Container change

[Harbs]

Simply put, NodeElementBase needs to extend Group and not UIBase.

The reason for this (which I forgot when we discussed it earlier) is that all 
HTML elements can have nested elements. Group initializes children, while 
UIBase does not.

Carlos, are you going to revert this change, or should we do it?

Thanks,
Harbs

> On May 9, 2018, at 12:18 PM, yishayw  wrote:
> 
> If we want HTML elements to contain other elements they need to extend Group
> or something similar. We depend on that in various places in our app.
> 
> Carlos, how are we supposed to nest HTML elements now?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Container change

[yishayw]

If we want HTML elements to contain other elements they need to extend Group
or something similar. We depend on that in various places in our app.

Carlos, how are we supposed to nest HTML elements now?

Thanks.



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

New Blog Post: Binding the text property of a Jewel TextInput to update a text Label

[Carlos Rovira]

Just published!

Thanks to Andrew for his support as always to get the most of the post and
make it shine! :)

https://royale.apache.org/binding-the-text-property-of-a-jewel-textinput-to-update-a-text-label/

Enjoy!


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira