Hi Harbs, I think that depends on the app itself. Maybe an App like PrintUI could be just one App since it is like a desktop app with many functionality built in but all used in a few screens. But in our case, our apps use lots of different screens, and grow constantly, it's in fact like to have many apps in one, just that all are related to the same domain (user, objects to work with,...). So at the end of the day you need to break into parts and if you're working in a leaf module you'll be more quick by just compiling that leaf instead of a monster app. So I think it is about use cases to choose one or another.
El jue., 22 oct. 2020 a las 17:30, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > I use PureMVC. > > I don’t use modules, and I’m personally skeptical that they really offer > very much for a JS web app. Modules have to add to the total weight of the > app and since binaries are not embedded into JS web apps, the extra weight > opf including everything in one compiled JS file is probably less than the > weight of using modules. > > Anyway, my structure looks like this: > > controller > model > - contants > - events > - helpers > - notifications > - proxies > - services > - vos > utils > view > - components > - constants > - events > - localization > - managers > - mediators > - renderers > > > On Oct 22, 2020, at 5:59 PM, Hugo Ferreira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 > >> > > -- Carlos Rovira Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC *Apache Software Foundation* http://about.me/carlosrovira
