Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-asjs_MXTests #35

[apacheroyaleci]

See 

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #34

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


Changes:

[serkan.tas] emulation components add and/or modified

[serkan.tas] Grid dependent spark emulation classes added.

[serkan.tas] ResourceBundle declaration commented out

[serkan.tas] ComplexSortField.as moved to the right package.

[carlosrovira] add bindable to tooltip bead

--
[...truncated 1.96 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Re: compc compiler error

[Alex Harui]

Hi Bhau,

1. You can look at the TourDeFlex example in 
examples/mxroyale/tourdeflexmodules.  Last time I looked Panels in Modules were 
showing up correctly.
2. I would try to avoid mixing component sets.  Use Basic+HTML or 
MXRoyale+SparkRoyale.
3. Make sure you are on the latest nightly build.  I had a similar problem with 
ComboBox recently.  I have not tried Spark ComboBox.  

If you are going to use MXRoyale+SparkRoyale, the Flex docs will be mostly 
relevant.  If you are using Basic+HTML you can look at the examples in 
examples/royale plus the ASDoc for Royale.

HTH,
-Alex

On 10/9/18, 9:42 AM, "bhau"  wrote:

Hi Alex,

I am getting empty page (or component) for some components, even though it
compiled without any issue.
Here are some of many confusions I have:

1) mx:Panel shows on screen but mx:Module doesn't 
2) Mix-n-match of mx or spark or basic or html namespace components does not
show at lot on page.
3) mx:ComboBox shows empty drop down box (even though dataProvider with good
data {label:, data:}  
 is bound and spark:ComboBox does not show any box at all.
4) Is there any pattern to follow for using Application or View or Panel or
container or Module components? 
5) Is there any document available to look into when designing UI screens ? 

Thanks,
--Bhau



--
Sent from: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6b04ae277f3241a2ab3608d62e06264f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636747001279009587sdata=wqouT4CIbtnVf0BZ1A7Y2v3PB4ZdYs%2BPh4hYwWs0FUs%3Dreserved=0

Re: compc compiler error

[bhau]

Hi Alex,

I am getting empty page (or component) for some components, even though it
compiled without any issue.
Here are some of many confusions I have:

1) mx:Panel shows on screen but mx:Module doesn't 
2) Mix-n-match of mx or spark or basic or html namespace components does not
show at lot on page.
3) mx:ComboBox shows empty drop down box (even though dataProvider with good
data {label:, data:}  
 is bound and spark:ComboBox does not show any box at all.
4) Is there any pattern to follow for using Application or View or Panel or
container or Module components? 
5) Is there any document available to look into when designing UI screens ? 

Thanks,
--Bhau



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

Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject

[Alex Harui]

As long as Responders are PAYG and not baked into the basic RO implementation, 
it is fine for others to try to replicate subsets of MX RemoteObject, but it 
still seems like duplication of effort.

That said, I have not used RO or Responders in any real world application 
myself.  I'm not sure I understand the need for them vs just adding more 
listeners to the result and fault event.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 10/9/18, 3:46 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi Piotr,

I think if I get some improvement over the current RO with Responders that
could go to develop. Other thing is I tried to make it work in mx RO.
People using Royale RO will benefit from it. If some day mx RO is ready, I
think we'll shift to mx RO, although royale RO could be continue to be
valid (since is a small implementation that works), or we could decide
deprecate it. Anyway, I'm not talking to make improvements over something
that others will evolve separately, I want to improve something that
otherwise will remain as is.



El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki 
()
escribió:

> Carlos,
>
> You can always use branch, make your changes and wait for the proper one
> using branch. Some time ago Harbs did it the same as far as I remember.
> There is no need to wait if you need something ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> wt., 9 paź 2018 o 12:36 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > since there's no planned ETA for anyone here (that I know), I could try
> at
> > some point to have a minimal Responder functionality in the current
> working
> > RO. Does not have sense to duplicate all the code but I think has sense
> to
> > see if some little changes can provide the minimal needs.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 0:25, Alex Harui ()
> > escribió:
> >
> > > I think you'll have to wait until someone gets all of the old Flex RO
> > code
> > > to compile and run.  I'm currently still debugging the compiler, so no
> > way
> > > it will be ready tomorrow.
> > >
> > > It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate all of this code and get it
> to
> > > work some other way.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 10/8/18, 3:21 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I'm closing for today, but tomorrow I'll need to handle more than
> one
> > > Responder for RemoteObject calls, so each operation/method can 
have
> > > it's
> > > own responder and create methods for each one in my controllers.
> with
> > > the
> > > current RemoteObject implementation could you share what could be
> the
> > > most
> > > quick and easy way to get this while the full RO implementation is
> on
> > > the
> > > works? Now that I'm starting to grow the app code base I can rely
> on
> > a
> > > result handler full of if-then-else
> > >
> > > Thanks for any help on this
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 18:52, Carlos Rovira (<
> > > carlosrov...@apache.org>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Ok Alex, thanks, didn't know that you have this task to make it
> > work
> > > RO. I
> > > > though you only try to compile it.
> > > > That's good to know. I'm trying right now to make a real world
> app
> > > and
> > > > since I don't have a micro structural IOC framework like Swiz,
> that
> > > was
> > > > that I use in Flex, I'm trying to structure and organize 
screens,
> > > > controllers, delegates, and so on, and I'm trying to put things
> as
> > > easy as
> > > > possible so I can refactor more later to something more suited
> for
> > > this
> > > > task, since I don't have time now to build a framework for this
> due
> > > to
> > > > reduced time lines.
> > > >
> > > > If you get this RO proxy way to call backend methods and
> > AsyncToken,
> > > > that's what I need to connect with MX RemoteObject in the same
> way
> > > we use
> > > > to do.
> > > >
> > > > I'll be waiting for your. progress there
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 17:28, Alex Harui
> > > ()
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > >> I believe I already said I am working on RemoteObject.
> > > >>
> > > >> The Flex compiler generates custom code for mx:RemoteObject.
> The
> > > Royale
> > > >> Compiler currently does not.  

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #33

[apacheroyaleci]

See 


--
[...truncated 1.95 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Re: Binding vs. direct assignment

[Olaf Krueger]

As so often, the answer seems to be:  "...it depends" ;-)
(which makes sense in this case)

However, thanks to all for your thoughts, they are always helpful!

Olaf









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

Re: Migrating Enterprise Flex Application

[chembali]

I downloaded the nightly build and it is working fine in the nightly build.



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

Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

I think if I get some improvement over the current RO with Responders that
could go to develop. Other thing is I tried to make it work in mx RO.
People using Royale RO will benefit from it. If some day mx RO is ready, I
think we'll shift to mx RO, although royale RO could be continue to be
valid (since is a small implementation that works), or we could decide
deprecate it. Anyway, I'm not talking to make improvements over something
that others will evolve separately, I want to improve something that
otherwise will remain as is.



El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki ()
escribió:

> Carlos,
>
> You can always use branch, make your changes and wait for the proper one
> using branch. Some time ago Harbs did it the same as far as I remember.
> There is no need to wait if you need something ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> wt., 9 paź 2018 o 12:36 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > since there's no planned ETA for anyone here (that I know), I could try
> at
> > some point to have a minimal Responder functionality in the current
> working
> > RO. Does not have sense to duplicate all the code but I think has sense
> to
> > see if some little changes can provide the minimal needs.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 0:25, Alex Harui ()
> > escribió:
> >
> > > I think you'll have to wait until someone gets all of the old Flex RO
> > code
> > > to compile and run.  I'm currently still debugging the compiler, so no
> > way
> > > it will be ready tomorrow.
> > >
> > > It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate all of this code and get it
> to
> > > work some other way.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 10/8/18, 3:21 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I'm closing for today, but tomorrow I'll need to handle more than
> one
> > > Responder for RemoteObject calls, so each operation/method can have
> > > it's
> > > own responder and create methods for each one in my controllers.
> with
> > > the
> > > current RemoteObject implementation could you share what could be
> the
> > > most
> > > quick and easy way to get this while the full RO implementation is
> on
> > > the
> > > works? Now that I'm starting to grow the app code base I can rely
> on
> > a
> > > result handler full of if-then-else
> > >
> > > Thanks for any help on this
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 18:52, Carlos Rovira (<
> > > carlosrov...@apache.org>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Ok Alex, thanks, didn't know that you have this task to make it
> > work
> > > RO. I
> > > > though you only try to compile it.
> > > > That's good to know. I'm trying right now to make a real world
> app
> > > and
> > > > since I don't have a micro structural IOC framework like Swiz,
> that
> > > was
> > > > that I use in Flex, I'm trying to structure and organize screens,
> > > > controllers, delegates, and so on, and I'm trying to put things
> as
> > > easy as
> > > > possible so I can refactor more later to something more suited
> for
> > > this
> > > > task, since I don't have time now to build a framework for this
> due
> > > to
> > > > reduced time lines.
> > > >
> > > > If you get this RO proxy way to call backend methods and
> > AsyncToken,
> > > > that's what I need to connect with MX RemoteObject in the same
> way
> > > we use
> > > > to do.
> > > >
> > > > I'll be waiting for your. progress there
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 17:28, Alex Harui
> > > ()
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > >> I believe I already said I am working on RemoteObject.
> > > >>
> > > >> The Flex compiler generates custom code for mx:RemoteObject.
> The
> > > Royale
> > > >> Compiler currently does not.  I am working on it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -Alex
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/8/18, 3:13 AM, "Carlos Rovira" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I was experimenting trying to get RemoteObject to proxy
> method
> > > calls.
> > > >>
> > > >> so instead of doing
> > > >>
> > > >> service.send("echo", [name_txt.text]);
> > > >>
> > > >> be able to do:
> > > >>
> > > >> service.echo(name_txt.text);
> > > >>
> > > >> I tried with Proxy class
> > > >>
> > > >> (org.apache.royale.utils.Proxy)
> > > >>
> > > >> and implementing IEventDispatcher, but compiler throws
> error:
> > > >>
> > > >> Call to a possibly undefined method echo through a reference
> > > with
> > > >> static
> > > >> type RemoteObject.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's possible to do something like this? what I'm missing?
> > > >>
> > > >> This seems a 

Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject

[Harbs]

Yes. Temporarily using a branch as a shim to keep working until a permanent 
solution is available is something I’ve done more than once.

That’s the cost of working with bleeding edge… ;-)

Harbs

> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Piotr Zarzycki  wrote:
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> You can always use branch, make your changes and wait for the proper one
> using branch. Some time ago Harbs did it the same as far as I remember.
> There is no need to wait if you need something ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> Piotr
> 
> wt., 9 paź 2018 o 12:36 Carlos Rovira  napisał(a):
> 
>> Hi Alex,
>> 
>> since there's no planned ETA for anyone here (that I know), I could try at
>> some point to have a minimal Responder functionality in the current working
>> RO. Does not have sense to duplicate all the code but I think has sense to
>> see if some little changes can provide the minimal needs.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 0:25, Alex Harui ()
>> escribió:
>> 
>>> I think you'll have to wait until someone gets all of the old Flex RO
>> code
>>> to compile and run.  I'm currently still debugging the compiler, so no
>> way
>>> it will be ready tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate all of this code and get it to
>>> work some other way.
>>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 10/8/18, 3:21 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>>> 
>>>Hi Alex,
>>> 
>>>I'm closing for today, but tomorrow I'll need to handle more than one
>>>Responder for RemoteObject calls, so each operation/method can have
>>> it's
>>>own responder and create methods for each one in my controllers. with
>>> the
>>>current RemoteObject implementation could you share what could be the
>>> most
>>>quick and easy way to get this while the full RO implementation is on
>>> the
>>>works? Now that I'm starting to grow the app code base I can rely on
>> a
>>>result handler full of if-then-else
>>> 
>>>Thanks for any help on this
>>> 
>>>Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 18:52, Carlos Rovira (<
>>> carlosrov...@apache.org>)
>>>escribió:
>>> 
 Ok Alex, thanks, didn't know that you have this task to make it
>> work
>>> RO. I
 though you only try to compile it.
 That's good to know. I'm trying right now to make a real world app
>>> and
 since I don't have a micro structural IOC framework like Swiz, that
>>> was
 that I use in Flex, I'm trying to structure and organize screens,
 controllers, delegates, and so on, and I'm trying to put things as
>>> easy as
 possible so I can refactor more later to something more suited for
>>> this
 task, since I don't have time now to build a framework for this due
>>> to
 reduced time lines.
 
 If you get this RO proxy way to call backend methods and
>> AsyncToken,
 that's what I need to connect with MX RemoteObject in the same way
>>> we use
 to do.
 
 I'll be waiting for your. progress there
 
 thanks
 
 Carlos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 17:28, Alex Harui
>>> ()
 escribió:
 
> I believe I already said I am working on RemoteObject.
> 
> The Flex compiler generates custom code for mx:RemoteObject.  The
>>> Royale
> Compiler currently does not.  I am working on it.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> 
> On 10/8/18, 3:13 AM, "Carlos Rovira" 
>>> wrote:
> 
>Hi,
> 
>I was experimenting trying to get RemoteObject to proxy method
>>> calls.
> 
>so instead of doing
> 
>service.send("echo", [name_txt.text]);
> 
>be able to do:
> 
>service.echo(name_txt.text);
> 
>I tried with Proxy class
> 
>(org.apache.royale.utils.Proxy)
> 
>and implementing IEventDispatcher, but compiler throws error:
> 
>Call to a possibly undefined method echo through a reference
>>> with
> static
>type RemoteObject.
> 
>It's possible to do something like this? what I'm missing?
> 
>This seems a little enhancement, but it would be cool if we
>> get
>>> it in
> order
>to be more near of the normal syntax we all have in our code
>>> bases.
> 
>thanks
> 
>--
>Carlos Rovira
> 
> 
>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
> 
> 
> 
 
 --
 Carlos Rovira
 
>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
 
 
>>> 
>>>--
>>>Carlos 

Re: Binding vs. direct assignment

[Carlos Rovira]

My position is like in other parts of life: don't see things white or
black. Try to understand in each case if you need Binding or not. Even for
things like PAYG, that we are promoting here, we should not apply it 100%.
I think we always need to pass all this decisions on the pros and cons that
we see and act consecuently to that analysis.

HTH

Carlos





El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 10:04, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> My main issue with binding is debugging it. Also, not all properties are
> bindable, so you need to read the docs anyway to see if the prop is
> bindable. You might as well spend the time to find the event that gets
> thrown and listen to that. But I might use it occasionally when I’m lazy
> and feeling lucky.
>
>
>
> 
> From: Alex Harui 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 10:44:47 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Binding vs. direct assignment
>
> IMO, the whole point of any framework is to trade-off size and performance
> for the convenience of getting your app up and running faster.  Any code
> that is reconfigurable/reusable carries overhead in some way.  We use PAYG
> to reduce some of that overhead, but nothing will ever be as fast and small
> as hand-tuned optimized code.  Flex Helloworld was 128K.  Royale Helloworld
> has grown to 80K.  It was 20K early on.  Everyone can write a custom
> HelloWorld in JS in much less than 1K.
>
> But generally, folks don't want to spend the time optimizing until too
> late, hoping they can get up and running because there is enough speed and
> performance in the network and runtimes.  Most of the time there is enough
> speed and performance.  With Flex more apps ran into trouble  With Royale
> fewer will.
>
> There is no right answer.  Use binding if you are in a hurry.  Use direct
> assignment if you have the time.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> PS: We need to look at the 80K in Helloworld some day and see how much we
> can cut out.  It was 50K recently IIRC.  You can presume that almost all of
> it is just-in-case instead of PAYG.
>
> On 10/9/18, 12:26 AM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
> an application framework has to provide binding these days but I
> sometimes
> think that this binding thing is a bit overrated.
> Even if it's convenience for the developer to just add some binding
> expressions there are a lot of cases where we can just do a direct
> assignment with one line of code.
>
> With Flex we've learned to use Binding carefully because of the
> overhead.
>
> Thanks to Alex explanation [1] we've learned that the binding
> implementation
> in Royale is more lightweight than in Flex.
>
> However, I am just interested in your opinion about binding and
> whether we
> should apply the same recommendations for Royale as for Flex or if the
> Royale implementation is lightweight enough to always use binding
> without
> any concerns.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2FRetrieving-a-collection-of-data-and-reassign-the-collection-to-show-in-a-component-with-Binding-tp6722p6735.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839sdata=T6ato%2F6E0UzyHor992JwJ4qrZo7jvTON5vgTo%2BN93Oo%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839sdata=sHsjuIjb7VTzywlNBzCXj4wgvq2YxtwFVtMyvfoF5mk%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>

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

Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Carlos,

You can always use branch, make your changes and wait for the proper one
using branch. Some time ago Harbs did it the same as far as I remember.
There is no need to wait if you need something ASAP.

Thanks,
Piotr

wt., 9 paź 2018 o 12:36 Carlos Rovira  napisał(a):

> Hi Alex,
>
> since there's no planned ETA for anyone here (that I know), I could try at
> some point to have a minimal Responder functionality in the current working
> RO. Does not have sense to duplicate all the code but I think has sense to
> see if some little changes can provide the minimal needs.
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 0:25, Alex Harui ()
> escribió:
>
> > I think you'll have to wait until someone gets all of the old Flex RO
> code
> > to compile and run.  I'm currently still debugging the compiler, so no
> way
> > it will be ready tomorrow.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate all of this code and get it to
> > work some other way.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/8/18, 3:21 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I'm closing for today, but tomorrow I'll need to handle more than one
> > Responder for RemoteObject calls, so each operation/method can have
> > it's
> > own responder and create methods for each one in my controllers. with
> > the
> > current RemoteObject implementation could you share what could be the
> > most
> > quick and easy way to get this while the full RO implementation is on
> > the
> > works? Now that I'm starting to grow the app code base I can rely on
> a
> > result handler full of if-then-else
> >
> > Thanks for any help on this
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 18:52, Carlos Rovira (<
> > carlosrov...@apache.org>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Ok Alex, thanks, didn't know that you have this task to make it
> work
> > RO. I
> > > though you only try to compile it.
> > > That's good to know. I'm trying right now to make a real world app
> > and
> > > since I don't have a micro structural IOC framework like Swiz, that
> > was
> > > that I use in Flex, I'm trying to structure and organize screens,
> > > controllers, delegates, and so on, and I'm trying to put things as
> > easy as
> > > possible so I can refactor more later to something more suited for
> > this
> > > task, since I don't have time now to build a framework for this due
> > to
> > > reduced time lines.
> > >
> > > If you get this RO proxy way to call backend methods and
> AsyncToken,
> > > that's what I need to connect with MX RemoteObject in the same way
> > we use
> > > to do.
> > >
> > > I'll be waiting for your. progress there
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 17:28, Alex Harui
> > ()
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > >> I believe I already said I am working on RemoteObject.
> > >>
> > >> The Flex compiler generates custom code for mx:RemoteObject.  The
> > Royale
> > >> Compiler currently does not.  I am working on it.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >> On 10/8/18, 3:13 AM, "Carlos Rovira" 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I was experimenting trying to get RemoteObject to proxy method
> > calls.
> > >>
> > >> so instead of doing
> > >>
> > >> service.send("echo", [name_txt.text]);
> > >>
> > >> be able to do:
> > >>
> > >> service.echo(name_txt.text);
> > >>
> > >> I tried with Proxy class
> > >>
> > >> (org.apache.royale.utils.Proxy)
> > >>
> > >> and implementing IEventDispatcher, but compiler throws error:
> > >>
> > >> Call to a possibly undefined method echo through a reference
> > with
> > >> static
> > >> type RemoteObject.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible to do something like this? what I'm missing?
> > >>
> > >> This seems a little enhancement, but it would be cool if we
> get
> > it in
> > >> order
> > >> to be more near of the normal syntax we all have in our code
> > bases.
> > >>
> > >> thanks
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Carlos Rovira
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> >
> 

Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

since there's no planned ETA for anyone here (that I know), I could try at
some point to have a minimal Responder functionality in the current working
RO. Does not have sense to duplicate all the code but I think has sense to
see if some little changes can provide the minimal needs.

thanks



El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 0:25, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> I think you'll have to wait until someone gets all of the old Flex RO code
> to compile and run.  I'm currently still debugging the compiler, so no way
> it will be ready tomorrow.
>
> It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate all of this code and get it to
> work some other way.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/8/18, 3:21 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I'm closing for today, but tomorrow I'll need to handle more than one
> Responder for RemoteObject calls, so each operation/method can have
> it's
> own responder and create methods for each one in my controllers. with
> the
> current RemoteObject implementation could you share what could be the
> most
> quick and easy way to get this while the full RO implementation is on
> the
> works? Now that I'm starting to grow the app code base I can rely on a
> result handler full of if-then-else
>
> Thanks for any help on this
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 18:52, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrov...@apache.org>)
> escribió:
>
> > Ok Alex, thanks, didn't know that you have this task to make it work
> RO. I
> > though you only try to compile it.
> > That's good to know. I'm trying right now to make a real world app
> and
> > since I don't have a micro structural IOC framework like Swiz, that
> was
> > that I use in Flex, I'm trying to structure and organize screens,
> > controllers, delegates, and so on, and I'm trying to put things as
> easy as
> > possible so I can refactor more later to something more suited for
> this
> > task, since I don't have time now to build a framework for this due
> to
> > reduced time lines.
> >
> > If you get this RO proxy way to call backend methods and AsyncToken,
> > that's what I need to connect with MX RemoteObject in the same way
> we use
> > to do.
> >
> > I'll be waiting for your. progress there
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 17:28, Alex Harui
> ()
> > escribió:
> >
> >> I believe I already said I am working on RemoteObject.
> >>
> >> The Flex compiler generates custom code for mx:RemoteObject.  The
> Royale
> >> Compiler currently does not.  I am working on it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 10/8/18, 3:13 AM, "Carlos Rovira" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was experimenting trying to get RemoteObject to proxy method
> calls.
> >>
> >> so instead of doing
> >>
> >> service.send("echo", [name_txt.text]);
> >>
> >> be able to do:
> >>
> >> service.echo(name_txt.text);
> >>
> >> I tried with Proxy class
> >>
> >> (org.apache.royale.utils.Proxy)
> >>
> >> and implementing IEventDispatcher, but compiler throws error:
> >>
> >> Call to a possibly undefined method echo through a reference
> with
> >> static
> >> type RemoteObject.
> >>
> >> It's possible to do something like this? what I'm missing?
> >>
> >> This seems a little enhancement, but it would be cool if we get
> it in
> >> order
> >> to be more near of the normal syntax we all have in our code
> bases.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84a4258241354233aeeb08d62d6c7081%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746341103394266sdata=yVx9zWfP496aU9xnOJfjjS%2Flk88UaE0OY5SENAwT%2Fy8%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>

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

Re: Binding vs. direct assignment

[Alex Harui]

IMO, the whole point of any framework is to trade-off size and performance for 
the convenience of getting your app up and running faster.  Any code that is 
reconfigurable/reusable carries overhead in some way.  We use PAYG to reduce 
some of that overhead, but nothing will ever be as fast and small as hand-tuned 
optimized code.  Flex Helloworld was 128K.  Royale Helloworld has grown to 80K. 
 It was 20K early on.  Everyone can write a custom HelloWorld in JS in much 
less than 1K.

But generally, folks don't want to spend the time optimizing until too late, 
hoping they can get up and running because there is enough speed and 
performance in the network and runtimes.  Most of the time there is enough 
speed and performance.  With Flex more apps ran into trouble  With Royale fewer 
will.

There is no right answer.  Use binding if you are in a hurry.  Use direct 
assignment if you have the time.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

PS: We need to look at the 80K in Helloworld some day and see how much we can 
cut out.  It was 50K recently IIRC.  You can presume that almost all of it is 
just-in-case instead of PAYG.

On 10/9/18, 12:26 AM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

Hi,
an application framework has to provide binding these days but I sometimes
think that this binding thing is a bit overrated.
Even if it's convenience for the developer to just add some binding
expressions there are a lot of cases where we can just do a direct
assignment with one line of code.

With Flex we've learned to use Binding carefully because of the overhead.

Thanks to Alex explanation [1] we've learned that the binding implementation
in Royale is more lightweight than in Flex.

However, I am just interested in your opinion about binding and whether we
should apply the same recommendations for Royale as for Flex or if the
Royale implementation is lightweight enough to always use binding without
any concerns.

Thanks,
Olaf



[1]

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2FRetrieving-a-collection-of-data-and-reassign-the-collection-to-show-in-a-component-with-Binding-tp6722p6735.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839sdata=T6ato%2F6E0UzyHor992JwJ4qrZo7jvTON5vgTo%2BN93Oo%3Dreserved=0





--
Sent from: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839sdata=sHsjuIjb7VTzywlNBzCXj4wgvq2YxtwFVtMyvfoF5mk%3Dreserved=0

Re: Binding vs. direct assignment

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Olaf,

I definitely like much more the idea where Binding is switched ON/OFF
through beads than available always as it was in Flex. It is lightweight as
long as you won't create some HUGE enterprise application where Binding is
heavy usage - Does everything slow down ? We don't know and probably we
won't know till someone create some day such app.

Thanks,
Piotr

wt., 9 paź 2018 o 09:26 Olaf Krueger  napisał(a):

> Hi,
> an application framework has to provide binding these days but I sometimes
> think that this binding thing is a bit overrated.
> Even if it's convenience for the developer to just add some binding
> expressions there are a lot of cases where we can just do a direct
> assignment with one line of code.
>
> With Flex we've learned to use Binding carefully because of the overhead.
>
> Thanks to Alex explanation [1] we've learned that the binding
> implementation
> in Royale is more lightweight than in Flex.
>
> However, I am just interested in your opinion about binding and whether we
> should apply the same recommendations for Royale as for Flex or if the
> Royale implementation is lightweight enough to always use binding without
> any concerns.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/Retrieving-a-collection-of-data-and-reassign-the-collection-to-show-in-a-component-with-Binding-tp6722p6735.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Binding vs. direct assignment

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi,
an application framework has to provide binding these days but I sometimes
think that this binding thing is a bit overrated.
Even if it's convenience for the developer to just add some binding
expressions there are a lot of cases where we can just do a direct
assignment with one line of code.

With Flex we've learned to use Binding carefully because of the overhead.

Thanks to Alex explanation [1] we've learned that the binding implementation
in Royale is more lightweight than in Flex.

However, I am just interested in your opinion about binding and whether we
should apply the same recommendations for Royale as for Flex or if the
Royale implementation is lightweight enough to always use binding without
any concerns.

Thanks,
Olaf



[1]
http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/Retrieving-a-collection-of-data-and-reassign-the-collection-to-show-in-a-component-with-Binding-tp6722p6735.html





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

Re: Migrating Enterprise Flex Application

[Alex Harui]

That error indicates that something is wrong with the set of beads specified 
for the class (PanelWithControlBar).

I just tried MenuExample and AccordionExample in my local build and they seemed 
ok.  You might want to try a nightly build.

HTH,
-Alex



On 10/8/18, 10:01 PM, "chembali"  wrote:

Alex, are you able to view the details in the error page that I have
attached?



--
Sent from: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce686441286994b59c0eb08d62da435c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746580634621138sdata=vyaqn1bGEx5Q9YyFnG%2Bvo1emQQli%2ByY%2B7NVXfa9FvHw%3Dreserved=0