Hi Greg, Thanks for writing this up. I took a quick read. I'll do a more careful read next week and have more detailed comments. One thing I wanted put up for discussion now is the notion of "defaults". Really, I'm trying to get away from the notion that there is one default we have to decide on. IMO, that's another old way of thinking from Flex. FlexJS is designed to support multiple component sets. Express will have different defaults. MDL has different defaults. The Basic set has a particular design goal (feature parity with SWF) and thus will have different defaults. There is often no one right answer, so we build different component sets and folks will try them and decide for themselves.
Thoughts? -Alex On 6/30/17, 3:29 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >Following on from other discussions, I have made a start on something here >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apa >che.org%2Fconfluence%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FpageId%3D71013028&data=02 >%7C01%7C%7C35f519d4ea87431fd80808d4c0078bc3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636344586020292933&sdata=aj4YiAsUQDGoW5Bf%2BQ2wyJxgqmguZ18T >Zng2jGcWIkY%3D&reserved=0 > >In the end this will only work if people want to do it. But I do believe >that one way of getting everyone on the same page here (and we do have >clear signs that not everyone is), is to, quite literally, get everyone on >the same page :). > >It is currently half content, half notes. There is more to harvest from >list discussions I think, some topics have progressed further than when I >started trying to capture ideas, so please correct any mistakes in the >definitions or add topics and questions that need 'resolution'/guidance. > >I personally would like to see some concrete guidance in the 'How does >PAYG >get implemented' section. There were definitely the beginnings of some >healthy discussions around some of the options for beads for example. >(DRY, >inheritance, utility functions etc). > >The goal here is to turn any list discussions around >uncertainties/misunderstandings into something that represents consensus. >I >think this should be do-able by simple discussions about specific topics, >maybe with informal voting if necessary. If there is no consensus then I >guess PMC could do a formal vote? (I don't know what makes sense here) > >Beyond work on the SDK, this type of information (in some form) might also >be helpful as part of the documentation for 1.0 when we get there, so it >could save someone time later on as well as being useful in the near term >(I hope).
