Assuming you meant add/remove from classList as you proposed in the first post,
then I think the answer is yes. I think that's simple enough to emulate and
will work most of the time. I think you have to use classList instead of
className because there will be other things in the classList.
For MXRoyale/SparkRoyale we are trying to have people change their code as
little as possible. We are not trying to set them up for the future. IMO, if
the migrator is willing to change a lot of code then Jewel or Basic should be
considered.
CSS is already funky in MXRoyale/SparkRoyale. Flex supported style properties
that don't exist in the browser (like gap and horizontalCenter, IIRC) and
width=100% has a completely different meaning. The emulation will eventually
watch for certain styles and decide whether to emulate it in browser CSS or
never set it in the browser and store the values elsewhere for use by getStyle
calls from other code. The layouts do the latter in most cases. PercentWidth
is never set on the HTMLElement. The old Flex layout code runs and interprets
it.
In the end, it should be a collaborative effort for the migrating team and the
framework team. Time is running out on 2020 so the main question is what will
get someone migrated faster? Emulation is usually faster and safer than
changing code paths in many places in the application and helps others trying
to use the emulations. But some emulations (runtime property access) are too
hard or slow so the application does need to be changed.
HTH,
-Alex
On 5/6/20, 11:08 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Alex, but - as a follow-on, do you think the styleName setter should
set the className if it has a string value assignment? Or should we be
telling people to manually edit the code/mxml and swap styleName string
value assignments to 'className' value assignments? I think for the
majority of cases (which I think will be string values), it might be good
to have it 'work by default' and we can add the warnings for non-strings,
like you suggest, but I just wanted to be sure that it is better to
'emulate' than to force review/attention....
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 5:03 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Without thinking too hard, I would output a warning if someone passes
> something other than a string. Then we'll know if anybody really needs
the
> more complex cases and can figure out what to do about it then.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/6/20, 2:11 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This question is mainly for Alex or anyone else involved in porting an
> MXRoyale application.
>
> When porting styleName='myStyleName' what is considered the best
> approach?
>
> I would have assumed that styleName could simply be added to the
> underlying
> element's classList if it is a string, so it (I assume) would
> correspond
> closely to how it was used in the original Flex app. But I know
> styleName
> is not always a string in Flex, but in my experience that seems to be
> the
> most frequent case, which relates to a named declaration in the
> stylesheet.
>
> Alex, and others, what are your thoughts? I am dealing with a large
> codebase and would like to use a consistent approach from the outset.
>
> At the moment we have;
>
> set styleName(value:Object /* String, CSSStyleDeclaration, or
> UIComponent
> */):void
> ...
> // TODO
> trace("styleName not implemented");
>
> if it is a string, then I assume it could be considered as a
> custom/arbitrary css class, similar to how I remember it working in
> Flex.
>
> UIComponent seems more problematic I assume, but I have not thought
too
> deeply about it.
>
> Anyway I would welcome thoughts. I guess one simple option is simply
to
> change it to className when porting if it is a string. But for
> MXRoyale I
> wondered if this should work (if it can) without changes....
>
>
>
