On 7/21/16, 7:09 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote:
>I agree with Alex in most respects, but have a couple of other >suggestions, below. > >I think the basic package should wrap (thinly, as possible) HTML/JS and >the SWF implementation mimic that but it doesn't necessarily need to have >the same names as HTML/JS uses and can be more platform agnostic. I agree the names don't have to be the same, but if those HTML/JS names are commonly found in code snippets it might help adoption to retain names. Again, a more Flash-compatible library can serve as the middle. > >I do think that we should refactor some things however. FlexJS "Core" >really needs to have all of the stuff that's universal and makes FlexJS >work. There are a number of interfaces in it that really belong in HTML >(basic). Imagine if we had a Basic project that included its own core, >shapes, and UI components. Then if you wanted to make a different set, >you'd use the universal Core and model your new set on Basic. You could be right that there is an interface in Core that should be in HTML. But we do need to consider what kind of component set interchanging we want to encourage. For example, it would help with interchange if every display component was an IUIBase. So for every interface in Core, the question to ask is "should, for example, Containers be interchangeable and what APIs on IContainer are implementation specific (tied to HTML, for instance)". Definitely good fodder for discussion. -Alex
