Sorry about that. The changes seemed so utterly minor. I'll be sure to run a more complete build in the future. ―peter
On 9/13/16, 5:01 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Ok, > > >I think I found the problem. By removing the reference to ImageView and >ImageModel, the compiler now no-longer adds the JS for both to the JS >output. This is then missing later down the stream. I added both to the >basic-manifest which made them part of the lib again. Now the Cordova >example is building nicely again. > > >I'm currently running the full build suite including examples ... as soon >as that passes, I'll commit my changes. > > >Chris > >________________________________ >Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 10:19:38 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: AW: [FlexJS]Image > >I think those last changes broke the framework build: > >https://builds.apache.org/view/E-G/view/Flex/job/FlexJS%20Framework%20(mav >en)/255/console > > >Chris > >________________________________ >Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> >Gesendet: Montag, 12. September 2016 20:11:18 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: [FlexJS]Image > >Thanks. > >I’ll clean up BinaryImage as well when I have the opportunity. > >On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I updated the defaults.css in the HTML project to include the Image's >> model and view for SWF and JS and removed this code fragment. >> ―peter >> >> On 9/12/16, 10:01 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> I had to go back and look into it all again. This code is necessary. >>>The >>> source property is actually stored in the image's model. When this >>> property changes, the ImageView bead picks it up and sets it into the >>> <img> element, so the ImageView bead is also necessary; the Image needs >>> the view in order to detect and handle changes in the model. >>> >>> However, I think the real change should go into the defaults.css file. >>> Right now, the Image's model and view beads are set only for the Flash >>> side, which is why the JS side is explicitly creating them. If the >>> defaults.css were changed to be universal, then the code you see for >>>the >>> JS side would not be needed. >>> >>> ―peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/12/16, 9:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'll have to see what happens when these lines are removed. The Flash >>>> side >>>> nearly always has model and view beads to build the components but >>>>the JS >>>> side may not have a view bead since the element (i.e., <img>) is the >>>> view. >>>> Meaning, the Flash and JS versions aren't always symmetric. I'm not >>>> really >>>> sure why the JS side would need a view. It may be that I was >>>> experimenting >>>> with making both sides always follow the same pattern and just >>>>checked in >>>> that code accidentally. >>>> >>>> Peter Ent >>>> Adobe Systems/Apache Flex Project >>>> >>>> On 9/12/16, 4:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Image component has the following code which did not make a lot >>>>>of >>>>> sense to me considering it¹s JS-only: >>>>> >>>>> model = new >>>>> ImageModel(); >>>>> >>>>> addBead(new >>>>> ImageView()); >>>>> >>>>> When trying to figure this out, we realized that this should be >>>>> instantiated in UIBase in a more generic fashion. Are we correct in >>>>> assuming that this is legacy code and should be removed? >>>>> >>>>> Harbs >>>> >>> >> >
