Thank you guys for your feedback. I have now a strategy. The difference between Approach B and Chris, it's about models. I prefer your and Chris approach.
About split in to modules, yes I know that it's not fully operational. Sincerilly, not something that I'm worry right now but I want to make this MVC pattern (even without split in to modules). Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quinta, 22/10/2020 à(s) 15:35: > Hi Hugo, Chris, > > I use the same layout as Chris or you Hug's B option (I think both are the > same if I'm interpreting right). > Just notice that the Modules are not working fully right now as we noticed > few weeks ago. I think debug is working but not released (maybe Greg can > say if that's true or not). > > I think that's something that needs the expertise of Greg and Josh to make > it fully work. Hope they can finally work at some point. > > El jue., 22 oct. 2020 a las 10:57, Hugo Ferreira (<[email protected] > >) > escribió: > > > Hi Christofer, > > > > Thank you. > > > > Interesting. > > Seems to follow better MVC pattern for a large application. > > I like it. > > > > Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quinta, > > 22/10/2020 à(s) 09:53: > > > > > Hi Hugo, > > > > > > in my Home Automation demo, I split up all Modules into separate maven > > > modules. > > > So right now I have sort of this structure > > > > > > MainModule > > > - model > > > - view > > > - controller > > > > > > ModuleA > > > - model > > > - view > > > - controller > > > > > > ModuleB > > > - model > > > - view > > > - controller > > > > > > The MainModule model contains all the types needed by the MainModule > and > > > which are shared among all modules and it takes care of loading ModuleA > > and > > > ModuleB > > > ModuleA and ModuleB each have the model classes they need exclusively > > > inside > > > > > > Not sure if this is the Royale way, but it's sort of what replicates > the > > > structure I have in my backend. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 22.10.20, 10:47 schrieb "Hugo Ferreira" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Looking for TodoMVC example, it's perfect. > > > It follows the MVC pattern at the point but we are talking about a > > > small > > > application with less then 10 files. > > > > > > On my current Flex application I'm using a different organization > > from > > > the > > > standard MVC: > > > + models > > > -- all model files > > > > > > + module_name_1 > > > -- MainViewName1.mxml > > > -- MainManagerName1.as > > > -- + some other sub-module_name_1 > > > ---- ViewName2.mxml > > > ---- ManagerName2.as > > > > > > + module_name_2 > > > -- MainViewName3.mxml > > > -- ManagerName3.as > > > > > > Somehow, it's MVC and all operations are in correspondente manager > > > (controller) as file. > > > > > > Looking now I'm not very satisfied with the solution. It's working > > and > > > I > > > will not change, it is what it is, however on my ongoing Royale > > > version I > > > can do a complete different approach. > > > There are hundread of mxml and as files, so the organization about > > > models > > > (all as model files) + views (all mxml files) + controllers (all as > > > controller files) with end up with a non standard MVC organization > > > structure. > > > > > > I'm thinking in one of two new approach: > > > Approach A: > > > + models > > > + views > > > --+ module_1 > > > ---- mxml1 > > > ---- mxml2 > > > + controllers > > > --+module_1 > > > ---- as1 > > > ---- as2 > > > > > > Approach B: > > > + models > > > --+ module_1 > > > ----+views > > > ----+controllers > > > --+ module_2 > > > ----+views > > > ----+controllers > > > > > > What do you guys think ? > > > Do you do MVC structure as the TodoMVC example or use a different > > > approach > > > as I do. > > > Do you think Approach A it's better than B or do you have a third > > > option ? > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > *Apache Software Foundation* > http://about.me/carlosrovira >
