I think "Express" isn't a bad name for this. It implies that you can get something running quickly.
Another name I thought of was "Star" (FlexJS Star). A third choice might be "Prime", meaning the main one to use. ‹peter On 1/3/17, 12:14 PM, "Dev LFM" <developer...@gmail.com> wrote: >I've been listening this thread, sorry my intrusion.. > >Why not simply: > >- ComponentBase for the current set without beads, and "Component" for the >ones with default beads included? > >I like "Express" too but not making much sense to me. > >My 2 cents ^^ > >2017-01-03 16:53 GMT+00:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> The original thread is another example of where PAYG becomes PITA. On >> another thread, Om wants to bake in HTML sanitization by default. IMO, >> these are things that should go in a heavier component set with more >> things baked in. IMO, this new, heavier component set would be the >> default for FlexJS. No more forgetting to add DataBinding beads, or >> SimpleCSSValuesImpl, etc. Fewer tags to write. >> >> I've asked Peter to start on it so you can see how to bake stuff in and >> how much simpler it will make our examples. I think it will help in >> getting folks started with fewer problems. I think we've proven that we >> can composite basic things into more complex things. >> >> But, we need a good name for this set. I don't like "Heavy". Makes me >> think it would be too fat and slow. I've ruled out for now "Kitchen >> Sink", and "Full" (because it won't contain every bead). I've thought >> about "Medium", "Typical", "Common", "Popular", "POC" (Proof of >>Concept)", >> "RP" (Rapid Prototyping). Don't like any of them. What name would >> suggest that it is not on the place to start but that you could use it >>in >> production if you don't run into size/performance issues? >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> On 1/2/17, 11:20 PM, "piotrz" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Alex, >> > >> >That's what I'm missing. It's a bit better cause when I add bead >> >"ItemRendererDataBinding" my getter has been fired, although binding is >> >still not working. I've just pushed my code. - Not sure what can be >> >wrong. >> > >> >I have to admit I'm still thinking to much Flex instead of FlexJS :) >> > >> >Piotr >> > >> > >> > >> >----- >> >Apache Flex PMC >> >piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >> >-- >> >View this message in context: >> >http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble. >> com/FlexJS-MDL-Why-bindin >> >g-is-not-working-in-MDL-example-tp57738p57795.html >> >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>Nabble.com. >> >>
