On 9/20/16, 10:43 AM, "OK" <[email protected]> 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
