Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Alex Harui]

The migration page I linked to earlier attempts to help people get started with 
MXRoyale and SparkRoyale (by changing the namespaces).  After that, the goal is 
for the components to work similar to the Flex components, so from an ASDoc 
standpoint, they “should” be able to use the Flex ASDoc and then ask for help 
when some API they need isn’t emulated.

HTH,
-Alex

From: Carlos Rovira 
Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:59 AM
To: "dev@royale.apache.org" 
Cc: Alex Harui 
Subject: Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

Hi

I think we could remove one level or even two.

Have at first level

MIGRATE AN EXISTING APPLICATION
  (instead of inside
CREATE AN 
APPLICATION<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapache.github.io%2Froyale-docs%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fcreate-an-application=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfe552f70e9654e48cb4f08d74c21a519%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637061579699191300=psCaSm1gieUiw0Vr0SzUcbS3FHh1gaTyZwBgEP%2BC%2Bgs%3D=0>
 )

then MIGRATE FROM 
FLEX<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapache.github.io%2Froyale-docs%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fmigrate-an-existing-app%2Fmigrate-from-flex.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfe552f70e9654e48cb4f08d74c21a519%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637061579699191300=BM%2B1rdQp2M5EeDlQzkP0U8%2FLtS7MBnz%2BhMBnDqpz38Q%3D=0>
 (nested)

And inside this we can add other entries to help that migration.


We still don't have anything about MX / SPARK emulation components in docs, so 
more info should be added if we want to make it people use it.

just my 2

Carlos




El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 19:00, Andrew Wetmore 
(mailto:cottag...@gmail.com>>) escribió:
Really good suggestions, @Alex Harui 
mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> . I could add text
and links to the "migrating" page based on what you outlined. I can get
that done sometime this week, but am not going to jump on it today in case
the conversation continues and an enhanced idea bubbles up.

Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:48 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> I'm going to try to address all of Chris Velevitch's several threads from
> today in this response.
>
> We have a page on Migrating Flex Apps here:
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapache.github.io%2Froyale-docs%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fmigrate-an-existing-app%2Fmigrate-from-flex.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfe552f70e9654e48cb4f08d74c21a519%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637061579699201297=oLHRIOLrNgyQIfLZ906xWFa5WvAMOy9RanvTjdClSAI%3D=0>
> But it is hard to find (took me several clicks to find it).  And it
> doesn't address the questions that I think Chris is asking, which are:
>
> -Which component sets should I use?
> -After I choose a component set, how do I figure out how something that
> worked in Flex works in that component set?
>
> We've offered Chris the opportunity to help with the doc, which would be
> great, but I'd settle for having Chris and others simply add the kinds of
> questions they have so we can add them to our FAQ and/or the docs.
>
> We may need to make it easier for Chris and others to decide on component
> sets first.  The way I think of it now, the trade offs are:
> A) I need the result to be as small and fast as possible and have time to
> rewrite the UI -> Use Basic and Strands and Beads
> B) I want to rewrite the UI to get a more modern look-and-feel -> Use Jewel
> C) I want to touch as little code as possible -> Use MXRoyale and
> SparkRoyale.
>
> If you choose C, you should not have to know anything about Strands and
> Beads.  MXRoyale and SparkRoyale should hide that from you.  Skinning
> should work like it used to.  Your app will not be as small and fast as if
> you spend more time rewriting it to Basic or Jewel, but TourDeFlex seems to
> be running ok.  As Alina and Pashmina finish up, we'll see how a really big
> Flex migration performs in Royale.
>
> It has taken them longer than expected, but for every bug or missing
> feature that is emulated correctly, the time to migrate for the next person
> goes down.  And as 2019 becomes 2020, there will be less time to migrate
> for some folks, so having more people on the emulation helps everyone else.
>
> So, we should figure out where to place information like this so Chris and
> others find it more easily.  Once a component set/migration strategy is
> chosen, it focuses a lot of other questions, such as how to do skinning, or
> how much about Strands and Beads you have to know.  In fact, it would be
> great to find a place to recommend to folks that when they write to us with
> questions that they specify which c

Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi

I think we could remove one level or even two.

Have at first level

MIGRATE AN EXISTING APPLICATION  (instead of inside CREATE AN APPLICATION

 )

then MIGRATE FROM FLEX

 (nested)

And inside this we can add other entries to help that migration.


We still don't have anything about MX / SPARK emulation components in docs,
so more info should be added if we want to make it people use it.

just my 2

Carlos




El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 19:00, Andrew Wetmore ()
escribió:

> Really good suggestions, @Alex Harui  . I could add text
> and links to the "migrating" page based on what you outlined. I can get
> that done sometime this week, but am not going to jump on it today in case
> the conversation continues and an enhanced idea bubbles up.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:48 PM Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to try to address all of Chris Velevitch's several threads from
> > today in this response.
> >
> > We have a page on Migrating Flex Apps here:
> >
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html
> > But it is hard to find (took me several clicks to find it).  And it
> > doesn't address the questions that I think Chris is asking, which are:
> >
> > -Which component sets should I use?
> > -After I choose a component set, how do I figure out how something that
> > worked in Flex works in that component set?
> >
> > We've offered Chris the opportunity to help with the doc, which would be
> > great, but I'd settle for having Chris and others simply add the kinds of
> > questions they have so we can add them to our FAQ and/or the docs.
> >
> > We may need to make it easier for Chris and others to decide on component
> > sets first.  The way I think of it now, the trade offs are:
> > A) I need the result to be as small and fast as possible and have time to
> > rewrite the UI -> Use Basic and Strands and Beads
> > B) I want to rewrite the UI to get a more modern look-and-feel -> Use
> Jewel
> > C) I want to touch as little code as possible -> Use MXRoyale and
> > SparkRoyale.
> >
> > If you choose C, you should not have to know anything about Strands and
> > Beads.  MXRoyale and SparkRoyale should hide that from you.  Skinning
> > should work like it used to.  Your app will not be as small and fast as
> if
> > you spend more time rewriting it to Basic or Jewel, but TourDeFlex seems
> to
> > be running ok.  As Alina and Pashmina finish up, we'll see how a really
> big
> > Flex migration performs in Royale.
> >
> > It has taken them longer than expected, but for every bug or missing
> > feature that is emulated correctly, the time to migrate for the next
> person
> > goes down.  And as 2019 becomes 2020, there will be less time to migrate
> > for some folks, so having more people on the emulation helps everyone
> else.
> >
> > So, we should figure out where to place information like this so Chris
> and
> > others find it more easily.  Once a component set/migration strategy is
> > chosen, it focuses a lot of other questions, such as how to do skinning,
> or
> > how much about Strands and Beads you have to know.  In fact, it would be
> > great to find a place to recommend to folks that when they write to us
> with
> > questions that they specify which component set(s) they are using because
> > the answer can be quite different based on the component sets involved.
> >
> > Suggestions from Chris and others as to how to make this information more
> > accessible are encouraged.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > On 10/8/19, 8:18 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I mean that like RO, that's a non visual component used to perform
> > communications, we have other "components" or "code" that can be
> > implemented as beads or strands.
> > The concept behind is that Royale have the minimum code needed for
> > functionality, and compose other parts (whatever the purpose of the
> > code
> > could be). So while UI Components use to refer to code that are
> visual
> > and
> > use to be a Button, a List or a Checkbox, strands are more agonistic
> > about
> > that particular use case, so seems, IMHO a better way to describe it
> > from
> > that point of view.
> >
> > El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 10:14, Chris Velevitch (<
> > chris.velevi...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> >
> > > So you are suggesting a RemoteObject is a headless component who's
> > > base class only supports the model and controller plugins and that
> UI
> > > classes extend the headless component to add in the view?
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for sharing 

Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Alex Harui]

I'm going to try to address all of Chris Velevitch's several threads from today 
in this response.

We have a page on Migrating Flex Apps here: 
https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html
But it is hard to find (took me several clicks to find it).  And it doesn't 
address the questions that I think Chris is asking, which are:

-Which component sets should I use?
-After I choose a component set, how do I figure out how something that worked 
in Flex works in that component set?

We've offered Chris the opportunity to help with the doc, which would be great, 
but I'd settle for having Chris and others simply add the kinds of questions 
they have so we can add them to our FAQ and/or the docs.

We may need to make it easier for Chris and others to decide on component sets 
first.  The way I think of it now, the trade offs are:
A) I need the result to be as small and fast as possible and have time to 
rewrite the UI -> Use Basic and Strands and Beads
B) I want to rewrite the UI to get a more modern look-and-feel -> Use Jewel
C) I want to touch as little code as possible -> Use MXRoyale and SparkRoyale.

If you choose C, you should not have to know anything about Strands and Beads.  
MXRoyale and SparkRoyale should hide that from you.  Skinning should work like 
it used to.  Your app will not be as small and fast as if you spend more time 
rewriting it to Basic or Jewel, but TourDeFlex seems to be running ok.  As 
Alina and Pashmina finish up, we'll see how a really big Flex migration 
performs in Royale.  

It has taken them longer than expected, but for every bug or missing feature 
that is emulated correctly, the time to migrate for the next person goes down.  
And as 2019 becomes 2020, there will be less time to migrate for some folks, so 
having more people on the emulation helps everyone else.

So, we should figure out where to place information like this so Chris and 
others find it more easily.  Once a component set/migration strategy is chosen, 
it focuses a lot of other questions, such as how to do skinning, or how much 
about Strands and Beads you have to know.  In fact, it would be great to find a 
place to recommend to folks that when they write to us with questions that they 
specify which component set(s) they are using because the answer can be quite 
different based on the component sets involved.

Suggestions from Chris and others as to how to make this information more 
accessible are encouraged.

My 2 cents,
-Alex


On 10/8/19, 8:18 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi,

I mean that like RO, that's a non visual component used to perform
communications, we have other "components" or "code" that can be
implemented as beads or strands.
The concept behind is that Royale have the minimum code needed for
functionality, and compose other parts (whatever the purpose of the code
could be). So while UI Components use to refer to code that are visual and
use to be a Button, a List or a Checkbox, strands are more agonistic about
that particular use case, so seems, IMHO a better way to describe it from
that point of view.

El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 10:14, Chris Velevitch (<
chris.velevi...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> So you are suggesting a RemoteObject is a headless component who's
> base class only supports the model and controller plugins and that UI
> classes extend the headless component to add in the view?
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> >
> > IMHO, not always a "strand" is a "visual component". This relation is 
not
> > always true. a strand could be a non visual component (for example the
> > implementation of RemoteObject in the Network library). And a bead could
> be
> > a strand itself.
> >
> > I think the term component is right in most cases and accomplish a
> meaning
> > purpose, but strand/beads concept comes to give another subset of 
meaning
> >
> > just my opinion about this.
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 9:23, Chris Velevitch (<
> chris.velevi...@gmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > The use of the terms "strands" and "beads" still doesn't make sense to
> > > me because they are concepts I have never heard before and it is
> > > creating a barrier to acceptance and deepens the learning curve. As
> > > far as I can tell, it's something to do with visual/UI components.
> > >
> > > The section "Strands and Beads" should ideally be titled "Visual
> > > Components" because that section is about visual components and is
> > > alluding to the fact visual components are standalone microcosms of
> > > the MVC pattern and the ability to treat the model, view and
> > > controller as plugins to the component. 

Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

I mean that like RO, that's a non visual component used to perform
communications, we have other "components" or "code" that can be
implemented as beads or strands.
The concept behind is that Royale have the minimum code needed for
functionality, and compose other parts (whatever the purpose of the code
could be). So while UI Components use to refer to code that are visual and
use to be a Button, a List or a Checkbox, strands are more agonistic about
that particular use case, so seems, IMHO a better way to describe it from
that point of view.

El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 10:14, Chris Velevitch (<
chris.velevi...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> So you are suggesting a RemoteObject is a headless component who's
> base class only supports the model and controller plugins and that UI
> classes extend the headless component to add in the view?
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> >
> > IMHO, not always a "strand" is a "visual component". This relation is not
> > always true. a strand could be a non visual component (for example the
> > implementation of RemoteObject in the Network library). And a bead could
> be
> > a strand itself.
> >
> > I think the term component is right in most cases and accomplish a
> meaning
> > purpose, but strand/beads concept comes to give another subset of meaning
> >
> > just my opinion about this.
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 9:23, Chris Velevitch (<
> chris.velevi...@gmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > The use of the terms "strands" and "beads" still doesn't make sense to
> > > me because they are concepts I have never heard before and it is
> > > creating a barrier to acceptance and deepens the learning curve. As
> > > far as I can tell, it's something to do with visual/UI components.
> > >
> > > The section "Strands and Beads" should ideally be titled "Visual
> > > Components" because that section is about visual components and is
> > > alluding to the fact visual components are standalone microcosms of
> > > the MVC pattern and the ability to treat the model, view and
> > > controller as plugins to the component. The statement that components
> > > are "strands" is, in my mind, misleading because it doesn't make sense
> > > to interchange terms components and strands if a strand is a
> > > component. In fact, diving into the code, the "addBead" function gives
> > > the "bead" a reference to the component the "bead" is being added to.
> > >
> > > It is clear from the documentation that "beads" are "plugins" and the
> > > documentation should be talking about extending components with
> > > plugins. All references to "bead" should be replaced with "plugin" and
> > > all references to "strand" be replaced with either "hostComponent", or
> > > "parent" or appropriately something else.
> > >
> > > We seem to be neglecting the rich heritage that we have gotten from
> > > Adobe Flex and I don't see the point giving existing concepts new
> > > names.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris Velevitch
> m: 0415 469 095
>


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

Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Chris Velevitch]

So you are suggesting a RemoteObject is a headless component who's
base class only supports the model and controller plugins and that UI
classes extend the headless component to add in the view?

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>
> IMHO, not always a "strand" is a "visual component". This relation is not
> always true. a strand could be a non visual component (for example the
> implementation of RemoteObject in the Network library). And a bead could be
> a strand itself.
>
> I think the term component is right in most cases and accomplish a meaning
> purpose, but strand/beads concept comes to give another subset of meaning
>
> just my opinion about this.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 9:23, Chris Velevitch ()
> escribió:
>
> > The use of the terms "strands" and "beads" still doesn't make sense to
> > me because they are concepts I have never heard before and it is
> > creating a barrier to acceptance and deepens the learning curve. As
> > far as I can tell, it's something to do with visual/UI components.
> >
> > The section "Strands and Beads" should ideally be titled "Visual
> > Components" because that section is about visual components and is
> > alluding to the fact visual components are standalone microcosms of
> > the MVC pattern and the ability to treat the model, view and
> > controller as plugins to the component. The statement that components
> > are "strands" is, in my mind, misleading because it doesn't make sense
> > to interchange terms components and strands if a strand is a
> > component. In fact, diving into the code, the "addBead" function gives
> > the "bead" a reference to the component the "bead" is being added to.
> >
> > It is clear from the documentation that "beads" are "plugins" and the
> > documentation should be talking about extending components with
> > plugins. All references to "bead" should be replaced with "plugin" and
> > all references to "strand" be replaced with either "hostComponent", or
> > "parent" or appropriately something else.
> >
> > We seem to be neglecting the rich heritage that we have gotten from
> > Adobe Flex and I don't see the point giving existing concepts new
> > names.
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira



-- 


Chris
--
Chris Velevitch
m: 0415 469 095

Re: Acceptance of Royale by Flex Developers

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Chris,

thanks for sharing your thoughts.

IMHO, not always a "strand" is a "visual component". This relation is not
always true. a strand could be a non visual component (for example the
implementation of RemoteObject in the Network library). And a bead could be
a strand itself.

I think the term component is right in most cases and accomplish a meaning
purpose, but strand/beads concept comes to give another subset of meaning

just my opinion about this.

Carlos



El mar., 8 oct. 2019 a las 9:23, Chris Velevitch ()
escribió:

> The use of the terms "strands" and "beads" still doesn't make sense to
> me because they are concepts I have never heard before and it is
> creating a barrier to acceptance and deepens the learning curve. As
> far as I can tell, it's something to do with visual/UI components.
>
> The section "Strands and Beads" should ideally be titled "Visual
> Components" because that section is about visual components and is
> alluding to the fact visual components are standalone microcosms of
> the MVC pattern and the ability to treat the model, view and
> controller as plugins to the component. The statement that components
> are "strands" is, in my mind, misleading because it doesn't make sense
> to interchange terms components and strands if a strand is a
> component. In fact, diving into the code, the "addBead" function gives
> the "bead" a reference to the component the "bead" is being added to.
>
> It is clear from the documentation that "beads" are "plugins" and the
> documentation should be talking about extending components with
> plugins. All references to "bead" should be replaced with "plugin" and
> all references to "strand" be replaced with either "hostComponent", or
> "parent" or appropriately something else.
>
> We seem to be neglecting the rich heritage that we have gotten from
> Adobe Flex and I don't see the point giving existing concepts new
> names.
>


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