Maybe, but like I said, I’m skeptical. Not saying you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced.
Whatever works for you… Cheers, Harbs > On Oct 22, 2020, at 6:54 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
