I will do option #1. Thanks for your advice.
Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 30 octobre 2013 17:18 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UIUtils vs RCPUIDUtils IMO, having two copies of this code is better than breaking people's apps. However, I'm not sure how often RPCUIDUtils is actually imported and used in other people's apps. I haven't looked at the code, but there might be an option 3 where UIDUtils.getUID has a "soft reference" to the class dependencies in the framework. We do that elsewhere. Instead of just writing: If (foo is SomeCLass) We do: Var someClass:Class = ApplicationDomain.getDefinition("SomeClass"); If (foo is someClass) Actually, there is more to it to handle exceptions and stuff, but that's the basic idea. I think #1 is the least amount of work. If you choose another option, you also have to move UIDUtils to core.swc. The idea was that folks with AS-only projects can just import core.swc and rpc.swc and use HTTPService/RemoteObject (without MXML, of course). -Alex On 10/30/13 8:29 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: >Got it. > >In effect, UIDUtils has dependencies to framework.swc from the >additional >getUID() function that is not in RPCUIDUtils. > >So I see two options: >Option 1) keep the redundancy, and just port the optimizations to >RPCUIDUtils. > >Option 2) split UIDUtils in two parts, maybe UIDUtils and >UIDFlexUtils, with the latter containing only the getUID() function > >Option 1) is safe, but not "clean". >Option 2) is a breaking change, because getUID() is a public API. > >What do you suggest? > >Maurice > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 30 octobre >2013 15:47 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UIUtils vs RCPUIDUtils > >Well, so far, I believe every Apache Flex release has allowed it, but I >haven't tested to make sure we haven't added unwanted dependencies. It >was the main reason behind core.swc. > >-Alex > >On 10/30/13 7:00 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> >wrote: > >>Thanks Alex, that must be the reason. >> >>Do we have this constraint anymore in Apache Flex ? >> >>Maurice >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 30 octobre >>2013 14:16 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UIUtils vs RCPUIDUtils >> >>Without looking, it may be that RPCUIDUtils exists to allow the RPC >>SWC to have fewer dependencies on other Flex classes. It was a goal >>to have folks use RPC in non-Flex apps (certain AS-only projects). >> >>On 10/30/13 2:09 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> >>wrote: >> >>>Hi team, >>> >>>Benoit Wiart has ported the UIDUtil optimization to RPCUIDUtil >>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33852 >>> >>>However, looking at the code, the two classes have the exact same >>>behavior, except the additional getUID(item:Object):String in >>>UIDUtils >>> >>>I don't know why there were two classes in the first place, but isn't >>>it possible to remove now the redundant RPCUIDUtil class and only use >>>UIDUtils ? >>> >>>Maurice >>> >>> >> >
