Re: Royale and Google Search

Update: Google was able to index the package links, but didn't seen to index the individual class pages yet. I just pushed an update to try to convince Google to crawl the class pages. We'll see. But now, if you Google Search for things like "Apache Royale CartesianChart" you will see a link

Re: 0.9.2 Release

Hi, > The nightly builds have been SHA-512 since Feb 12, so yes 0.9.2 will be > SHA-512 instead of MD5. Good to hear the change has been made. [1] However I noticed that the extension on the hash file is required to be “.sha512” not “.SHA-512”. [2] I believe this is to do with how the hash

Re: "Vivid" to become "Jewel"

Hi Piotr, thanks! :), don't worry I can wait for you to come, I can still be preparing the "scenario" so when you come is all more easy to collaborate :). Regarding names and namespace, I'm a great advocate that these things matters, I know people can use different prefixes if they want, but in

Re: Quick poll for Jewel Button

Ok, so for now, I'll go with Basic inheritance and will follow naming conventions. Then we can have a Jewel-Express set... thanks for your advice Carlos 2018-03-02 21:19 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > The reason for a separate Button vs TextButton is that there are (or

Re: Quick poll for Jewel Button

The reason for a separate Button vs TextButton is that there are (or will be) lots of buttons that never have text so there is no point to creating text elements/nodes for them. Such as the up/down in NumericStepper, play/record/pause in Video/Audio components, bold/italic/underline in a Rich

Re: Quick poll for Jewel Button

Hi Carlos, In my opinion the simpler it is the better. If you can provide simple component, that should be user responsibility create using beads/css or other items more sophisticated things. OR we could do this in a separate module. I agree with the idea to do not repeat large and heavy

Re: "Vivid" to become "Jewel"

Hi Carlos, First of all - Great job! :) You are again creating something awesome and I can't wait to join you with help. Still many things holds me off. :) Some thought about the namespace, I would not bother about that. User can have different namespace if they want. In the other words I can

Quick poll for Jewel Button

Hi, let me know what do you think about : * Should Button in Jewel UI Set be named as "Button" or "TextButton"? (I see more natural a "Button" that a "TextButton") * Should the main Button in Jewel UI Set inherit from TextButton in "Basic" or "Express"? (that means to have "enabled",

Re: "Vivid" to become "Jewel"

Hi Alex, don't want to disturb the new release, and as I'm working on a branch, I think all this work will no affect that. My plan is to make some real work first, and maybe this weekend make the renaming, but all in the branch. Maybe, if I get a component or two that looks final in this days, we

Re: "Vivid" to become "Jewel"

Sounds ok to me. Are you going to try to do that for 0.9.2 or the next release? -Alex On 3/2/18, 11:25 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" wrote: >Hi, > >now that we solved part of the technical problems to

API Report Summary for a Flex Web Browser Application

Hi Folks, As you may know, we've received a ton of raw data from a user with a rather large Flex application. There were over 600 MXML files involved, AIUI. I've got it crunched down in a spreadsheet. Alina, are you ok if we post that spreadsheet somewhere? I've cut and pasted the dependencies

Re: TypeNames vs ClassName

Again, the principles of PAYG are that there is as little Just-in-case code as possible. AIUI, every MDL user will be downloading and initializing the ClassList prototype just-in-case. This is not true of Strings. It isn't just the cost of instantiation. There are download and class

Re: 0.9.2 Release

Thank you sir! > On Mar 2, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > The nightly builds have been SHA-512 since Feb 12, so yes 0.9.2 will be > SHA-512 instead of MD5. This is just more FUD from Justin. > > -Alex > > On 3/2/18, 8:20 AM, "Dave Fisher"

Re: 0.9.2 Release

Hi Justin, > Also not everyone may be aware are some new considerations around hashes for > releases. [2] But it is easily to comply, compared to the last release you > would need to add a SHA hash file or replace the existing MD5 file with a SHA > file. (a) Alex is aware. (b) The policy

Re: 0.9.2 Release

On Mar 2, 2018 5:33 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: Hi, > I don’t know what the text in the LICENSE file means because the data does not seem to be the same. Is the LICENSE file out of date? Perhaps but unlikely as the URL in the LICENSE was changed a few weeks ago [1]. I’d

Re: 0.9.2 Release

Hi, > I don’t know what the text in the LICENSE file means because the data does > not seem to be the same. Is the LICENSE file out of date? Perhaps but unlikely as the URL in the LICENSE was changed a few weeks ago [1]. I’d guess that perhaps the URL in the LICENSE was changed but the change

Re: 0.9.2 Release

OK. I did not notice that. I don’t know what the text in the LICENSE file means because the data does not seem to be the same. Is the LICENSE file out of date? Om, can you shed some light on this? Thanks, Harbs > On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > >

Re: TypeNames vs ClassName

Harbs, Thanks for such a good explanation. I think I will go with your class. 2018-03-02 10:36 GMT+01:00 Harbs : > I do agree that this is pretty low on the list of priorities. I did not > have a head to work on anything “serious” and the class lists was a nice >

Re: 0.9.2 Release

I have no idea why you are assuming the data in MapCoords.as comes from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_US_map_1860.svg The data strings are different. Alex already mentioned SHA. Thanks, Harbs > On Mar 2, 2018, at

Re: TypeNames vs ClassName

I do agree that this is pretty low on the list of priorities. I did not have a head to work on anything “serious” and the class lists was a nice distraction for me. I’m certainly fine with however Piotr handles this. I would like to point out a few things: 1. Object instantiation is pretty

Re: 0.9.2 Release

Hi, AFAIK there’s still an outstanding license issue [1]. The license [3] links to this [4] which doesn't look compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. Also not everyone may be aware are some new considerations around hashes for releases. [2] But it is easily to comply, compared to the last