gt;>>>>> If there is a FlexJS implementation, it is not necessary to give a
>>>>>>>MDL
>>>>>>> implementation (?).
>>>>>>> If there is a FlexJS or a MDL implementation, implementation hints
>>>>>>> s
harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 3 octobre 2017 22:33
> À : us...@royale.apache.org
> Cc : dev@royale.apache.org; us...@flex.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Flex to FlexJS migration path
>
> Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I’m thinking that a Royale app to
> display the data
a FlexJS or a MDL implementation, implementation hints
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>> be empty (?).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think this leads naturally to giving the "express" implementation
> >>>>>>as
> >>>&g
st FlexJS equivalent" because it would usually really be the
>>>>>> "closest equivalent".
>>>>>> The link to API reference documentation would allow to see how the
>>>>>> "express" version is constructed and all the implement
ption...
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe a "discussion" link (on each line) would be interesting : it
>>>>> could
>>>>> lead to a page where implementers and developers could share their
>>>>> experience on a component-by-compo
t;>> tips etc.
>>>> I'm not sure if this is different from "implementation hints"... In my
>>>> mind "implementation hints" is really about components who do not
>>>> really
>>>> have an equivalent. "Discussion" is
>>> would indicate if this closest implementation sits in the FlexJS/Royale
>>> world or the MDL world.
>>> (is "Apache Royale" the new designation of "FlexJS" ? And should I drop
>>> entirely "FlexJS" from my posts ?)
>>>
>>> Th
JS
>> implementation.
>>
>> It probably should link to Flex Apache docs... it is more logical since
>> they contains at least the same information as Adobe docs and they are
>> supposed to be more up-to-date than Adobe docs.
>>
>> Maybe, for classes wh
