On 9/20/16, 10:43 AM, "OK" <p...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:

>>Yes, beads would be a good thing, but IMO, it is only necessary for the
>>COMPILE::SWF code, since it is the SWF code that doesn't have built-in
>>functionality to rely on.
>
>If we'd go this way, does it mean that at the end users would have to add
>beans to make sure that the SWF version works and also have to add the
>properties to the TextInput component to make sure that the JS version
>works?

Some beads are internal and baked in.

A key point for FlexJS is that there doesn't have to be one TextInput.
There can be many flavors, each slightly more powerful and feature-filled,
but also fatter and potentially slower.  We want to give developers the
trade-offs.  Some combinations will become more popular.  There might be a
TextInputWithPrompt component some day that bakes in the Prompt bead.  You
might decide to call this version of TextInput a
TextInputWithRequireAndPattern component unless there is little chance
that folks will want a lighter weight version of
org.apache.flex.html5.TextInput that doesn't support require and pattern
that they don't want to use org.apache.flex.html.TextInput for.

I don't really have an opinion either way and we can change our minds
later.  So pick a name, decide on whether to have beads on the JS side and
give it a go!

Thanks,
-Alex

Reply via email to