Re: Container change

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

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #779

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

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #778

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

Re: Container change

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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 : >

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

> 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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #776

See Changes: [carlosrovira] remove amf.js since is not needed anymore -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc]

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #775

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

Re: Container change

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

Re: Container change

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* > [

Re: Container change

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:

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #774

See Changes: [harbs] Changed Multiline whitespace to pre-wrap -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar

Re: Container change

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

Re: Apache Royale new app

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

Re: Apache Royale new app

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

Apache Royale new app

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

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #773

See Changes: [yishayjobs] NodeElementBase should allow nesting -- [...truncated 1.76 MB...] [mxmlc] org.apache.royale.html.ButtonBar

Re: Container change

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

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

Re: Container change

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

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