Hi Carlos, I'm not sure if it is better for Jewel to extend from UIBase or not. I just want to understand the technical reasons why you decided not to extend UIBase. We want to make sure UIBase works for as many people as possible, but on the other hand, I wouldn't mind proving that the framework doesn't require org.apache.royale.core.UIBase. Hopefully the framework uses IUIBase instead. It should be ok for someone to come up with a completely different base class as long as it conforms to IUIBase and other interfaces.
Thanks, -Alex On 4/10/18, 8:54 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >the plan was to reuse as much as I can basic functionality. You think is >better to extend directly from UIBase? (In this case JewelUIBase) >If you think is better, then I'll go that path and we can UIBase >untouched. > >thanks > >2018-04-10 17:15 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > >> Why are Jewel components not extending UIBase? >> >> On 4/10/18, 3:45 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos >>Rovira" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Hi >> > >> >I think we can take another approach. Since I'm finding that half of >>Jewel >> >components are not extending basic components for one reason or >>another, >> >maybe a good option would be: >> > >> >1.- Left UIBase untouched >> > >> >2.- Make JewelUIBase that extends UIBase, and introduced that code >> > >> >3.- Refactor Jewel components to use JewelUIBase >> > >> >In this way Basic, and other sets will remain untouched and not >>affected >> >by >> >this change >> > >> >Let me know what do you think about it. >> > >> >Thanks >> > >> > >> >2018-04-10 9:11 GMT+02:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> The article you linked to was a very old article. I already >>responded to >> >> that. I would need some tests to prove that it’s still true today. >>The >> >> tests that I saw seemed to indicate that it wasn’t. >> >> >> >> Philosophically, I think you are tying the behavior of UIBase too >> >>closely >> >> with the thinking behind Jewel which relies very heavily on class >>names >> >>and >> >> requires that users do not change that. I don’t think that’s going >>to be >> >> true for every component set. >> >> >> >> I completely agree with Alex’s response. >> >> >> >> My $0.02, >> >> Harbs >> >> >> >> > On Apr 10, 2018, at 12:50 AM, Carlos Rovira >><[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Harbs, >> >> > >> >> > I though I did it. I give links to peformance links that for me >>proved >> >> that >> >> > people is going through classList. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Carlos Rovira >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% >> 7Cdaafba5ff16a4a20856508d5 >> >9ed02fcc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% >> 7C636589539427581762&s >> >data=Y9fXcrA51Ox3ztRIM4s0Z%2BH3vSUkagbqXpU1W6slul0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> > > >-- >Carlos Rovira >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C94ea37bd6a1546511d8208d5 >9efb78b1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636589725255561689&s >data=rjHuwyQi0bB9d%2Fg3dfZwUnKO6Pcgdv9WDkDduUxoBi8%3D&reserved=0
