IMO, "Express" is the best idea so far. I also thought of "Loaded" (with beads), "Beaded", "Quickstart".
Peter, if you want to get started, make a folder called Express. We can always change it later. -Alex On 1/3/17, 10:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: >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. >>> >>> >
