Hi, I have renamed the repository to "royale-simple-jsonly" and changed the ActionScript project name to Simple and the package name to "simple" as well.
https://github.com/pentapache/royale-simple-jsonly/wiki Enjoy! —peter On 4/24/18, 11:07 AM, "Peter Ent" <[email protected]> wrote: >I do like simple-js-only but that's not really what it could be. I didn't >turn off the SWF build for the repo because I thought maybe I (or someone >else) would go back and add the SWF side. I did write that at this point >it is JS-only, but it still stands as possible to add SWF. > >We have -asjs which is really -asjs+swf+js or, more important, it can be >anything. > >However, given that right now it is a JS-only code base, I think naming it >simple-js-only is a better choice. I will work on renaming it over the >next few days. > >Thank you so much for your input. >‹peter > >On 4/24/18, 4:28 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >>maybe better saying what's in and not what's out. For example >>"royale-simple-js-only" ? >> >>just my 2 :) >> >>2018-04-24 8:36 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: >> >>> IMO, "simple" is too subjective. IMO, the name should indicate the key >>> differentiators. So "no-swf" might be part of the name. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 4/23/18, 11:59 AM, "Peter Ent" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I picked "Foundation" because "Basic" was taken and I was thinking >>>of >>> "foundation classes". I guess I should have been more open on the >>>list >>> that I was creating a new set of components. I did this as a fun >>>task >>> for >>> myself while I was discharging all of the thoughts on Royale Basic >>>in >>> my >>> head about these years in FlexJS/Royale and I wanted to preserve >>>those >>> thoughts. I did not intend this to be disruptive in any way; I >>>didn't >>> think people would be obliged to look at it right away (or even at >>>all >>> if >>> they didn't feel interested). >>> >>> Perhaps it is best if I rename the repository. How do you feel >>>about >>> "royale-simple"? I think "simple" is good because the classes are >>>not >>> that >>> complex. >>> >>> I have been asked why I thought this was necessary to do and if I >>> looked >>> at the MDL project to see about leveraging it. I did not look at >>>MDL (I >>> did follow MDL when it was being developed but it has been a long >>> while), >>> but I have today gone back and looked at some key classes. >>> >>> First, this project was not necessary to fill any deficiencies in >>> Royale. >>> This was, as I said above, just a fun project for me. I like to >>>write >>> code. There's something very creative about starting with a nearly >>> blank >>> slate and producing something, even if something like already >>>exists. >>> >>> One main thing I did that is different from MDL and Basic, is that >>>I >>> made >>> everything inherit from a common base class - UIComponent. In Basic >>> (and >>> MDL), buttons are different due to their SWF-side implementation. I >>> made >>> Buttons a UIComponent and I made the Application a UIComponent as >>> well. I >>> also enhanced IUIBase and added other properties. I also wanted to >>> give it >>> some Flex-like appeal so I kept some of the same class names that I >>> liked; >>> I was inspired by revisiting Flex recently. >>> >>> There is nothing wrong with what we have created in Royale. I think >>>it >>> is >>> a testament to its design that a new framework can be added without >>> much >>> work and demonstrates to people that they can make their own >>>frameworks >>> using Apache Royale as their starting point. >>> >>> I'll wait a few days and if there are no objections, I'll rename >>> "royale-foundation" to "royale-simple". >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/18, 7:55 PM, "Niclas Hedhman" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >If this goes forward, I hope to see a different name... Apache >>>Royale >>> >Foundation sounds like some daughter/sibling organization of >>>Apache >>> >Software Foundation. >>> > >>> >I.e. I understand that "Foundation" here is similar to that of >>> Microsoft >>> >Foundation Classes, but due to ASF's name, I think it is >>>unfortunate >>> if >>> >this name persist. >>> > >>> >My 2 cent >>> >Niclas >>> > >>> >On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 00:37 Peter Ent <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> As many of you know, over five years ago Adobe Systems donated >>>Flex >>> to >>> >>the >>> >> Apache Foundation. My time on this mission is drawing to a close >>>in >>> a >>> >> couple of weeks. I am actively trying to find a new position >>>within >>> >>Adobe. >>> >> I hope to continue to participate in the Royale project, but >>>that >>> may be >>> >> determined by my next employer/manager. >>> >> >>> >> In the meantime, I decided to look back through all my notes and >>> ideas >>> >>and >>> >> I created a "thesis" project to express what I've learned and to >>> leave >>> >>my >>> >> ideas out there for others to use. >>> >> >>> >> I've created what I call "Apache Royale Foundation" - an >>> alternative to >>> >> the Basic project in Royale. I have this stored in a public >>> >>repository[1], >>> >> separate from royale-asjs. The Foundation project (in >>> >>frameworks/projects) >>> >> would be a sibling to Basic, but I needed to make a few changes >>>to >>> the >>> >>Core >>> >> project and I did not want take the chance of messing up the >>> royale-asjs >>> >> repository, even with a separate branch. I just felt it was >>>safer to >>> >>make a >>> >> new public repo using my Apache Github account. >>> >> >>> >> The royale-foundation repo is a downsized version of >>>royale-asjs. I >>> took >>> >> only a handful of projects from frameworks (e.g., Core, Network) >>> that I >>> >> thought I could make use of either directly in Foundation or in >>> >>examples. I >>> >> set up the commits to first put in the downsized code, then >>>changes >>> to >>> >> Core, then the main Foundation classes. This way you can see >>>what >>> >>changes >>> >> were made to Core (mainly to IUIBase and a just a few others). >>> >> >>> >> For a more detailed explanation of Foundation, I wrote a Wiki >>> page[2] to >>> >> go with the code. I really wanted to see what writing an >>> >> almost-from-scratch framework involved. I decided to ignore the >>> Flash >>> >> Player and concentrate exclusively on HTML/JS. While >>> royale-foundation >>> >>will >>> >> build something on the SWF side, it will either not run or >>>produce >>> just >>> >>a >>> >> blank window. This was a fun project to fill the time and >>>improve my >>> >> JavaScript and CSS skills while looking for my next challenge. >>> >> >>> >> I could not have done this without the Core project and the work >>>of >>> >> everyone who has contributed to Royale. There are a lot of >>> background >>> >> pieces that go into make a framework viable and I made use of >>>them >>> as >>> >>much >>> >> as possible. >>> >> >>> >> I suggest starting with the Wiki[2] before looking at the >>>code[1]. >>> Once >>> >> you do get the code, you should be able to build it using ANT (I >>> did not >>> >> modify the maven pom files yet) and then build the examples. >>> >> >>> >> [1] Apache Royale Foundation Repo: >>> >> >>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c >>> >>>>>om%2Fpentapache%2Froyale-foundation&data=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com >>> %7C5cf >>> >>7d87b0ef34ce3818c08d5a8aca1d9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >>> cee1%7C0%7C0% >>> >>7C636600381788184543&sdata=gpllo0jYdNsp% >>> 2FWQm0R7Lxi57l4muoyWX7Tf9YKZaF%2F >>> >>Y%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >>> >> [2] Apache Royale Foundation Wiki (in the Repo): >>> >> >>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c >>> >>om%2Fpentapache%2Froyale-foundation%2Fwiki&data=02%7C01%7Cpent% >>> 40adobe.co >>> >>>>>m%7C5cf7d87b0ef34ce3818c08d5a8aca1d9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >>> cee1%7 >>> >>C0%7C0%7C636600381788184543&sdata=MtF1eGblWYuSi% >>> 2F3nBxEulYrJg%2Fz5u6FliZt >>> >>2SjT%2F0po%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Peter Ent >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Carlos Rovira >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% >>2 >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C0f679c51ad234ba737d208d5a >>9 >>bd764a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636601553580689134&sd >>a >>ta=cgXmmJUy8di%2Fu%2BqcRJ%2FtV5YgQVTlnYdTs6hzM8Bgp8U%3D&reserved=0 >
