Hi,
> Right now, we have mx (going away, eventually), fx (script tags) and s
> (spark). I don't even think adding an "a" namespace to denote new
> components from Apache really makes sense at this point.
I though this had already been agreed upon? We needed an area (and new
namespace) that new c
I think I still have a pitchfork in my closet from that one.
Personally, I think that we should keep the existing name spaces.. And for
those who don't want to use particular elements from those namespaces (for
example, with very few exceptions, my mobile flex apps don't use, nor
declare the mx n
Hi,
Seems there are good reasons not to try and remove the namespace URL from MXML
code that I think we can call this resolved.
> What I'm being against here is expressed simply:
> Compiler should not be aware of the framework code.
> MXML should not be aware of the framework code.
Which is a
Well, it currently does: you have to use some Flex-framework-related
namespace to compile things that have nothing to do with the framework. If
compiler will suddenly acquire additional special knowledge of framework
classes (unfortunately, it already has quite a bit), it will create
coupling of an
On Saturday, March 17, 2012, Left Right wrote:
>> For generic MXML that is correct but for the Flex SDK there is ie
> flex-config.xml.
> Justin, you are confusing Flex SDK and Flex framework. If you use SDK, you
> may not use the framework. MXML doesn't require that you use UIComponent
or
> downlo
> For generic MXML that is correct but for the Flex SDK there is ie
flex-config.xml.
Justin, you are confusing Flex SDK and Flex framework. If you use SDK, you
may not use the framework. MXML doesn't require that you use UIComponent or
download any RSLs. I'm not "assuming" it, I know it for a fact
I don't see the problem either.
Tink
aYo ~ wrote:
>I really do not see any problem here. Its flexible and that's the point.
>a
>On 17 Mar 2012 01:55, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If we make no changes it probably means that down the track we're likely
>> to end up with this:
>>
>> >
I really do not see any problem here. Its flexible and that's the point.
a
On 17 Mar 2012 01:55, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we make no changes it probably means that down the track we're likely
> to end up with this:
>
> xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
>xmlns:s=
On 3/16/12 9:08 PM, "Omar Gonzalez" wrote:
>
> I think s:List and mx:List is fine. I think changing the classes to MxList
> or sList or SList is pretty ugly.
In Flex 4, the early pre-releases added Fx to everything (FxList,
FxTextInput) to avoid requiring folks learn about namespaces. The
p
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I don't mind them either. I tried using manifest files and always ran
> into
> > weird issues in FlashBuilder with them so I never used them.
> Each namespace URI maps directly to a manifest file so you are probably
> using them and
Hi,
> I don't mind them either. I tried using manifest files and always ran into
> weird issues in FlashBuilder with them so I never used them.
Each namespace URI maps directly to a manifest file so you are probably using
them and don't realise it.
> They're also a hassle to maintain.
A little.
On Friday, March 16, 2012, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with "excessive" use of names
paces.
> Perhaps it's just me they bug :-)
>
> Good to hear another viewpoint.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
I don't mind them either. I tried using manifest files and alwa
Thank you - clarifies a lot.
Maybe a compromise is to simply just use for every new
component from Apache until Adobe actually adopts it into the main fork?
My vote on this, put it up for vote now, and move on to more important
issues. We can revisit later.
Duane
President/C
Hi,
> For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with "excessive" use of names paces.
Perhaps it's just me they bug :-)
Good to hear another viewpoint.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> In any case, what do you see as an alternative? I cannot see any other
> than combining the a, as and amx into one.
Well I think it would be possible to make one huge manifest file (ie one name
space that includes everything).
You would then have to decide how to resolve the conflicts (c
Hi,
> This is assuming that someone would use both Adobe and Apache spark
> components
Which is very likely as initially the apache set of components are going to be
small in number and would be used with other spark or mx components.
> It's 4 extra lines of code. Why is this a bad situation?
For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with "excessive" use of names paces. I
would actually argue this is a good thing. It makes the code more clear and
concise in my opinion.
I think it just comes down to a matter of preference, and probably has a lot to
do with how Flex is used. Even for r
On 12-03-16 7:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>If we make no changes it probably means that down the track we're likely
>to end up with this:
>
> xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
> xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
> xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex
Hi,
> Also you'd only get that many namespaces if you used a variety of different
> component sets in a single mxml document.
Which is quite likely I think. You currently quite often need to use both spark
and mx if you want to use apache you need to add that so that. (The four
already fx, s,mx
On Mar 16, 2012 8:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> If we make no changes it probably means that down the track we're likely
to end up with this:
>
> xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
>xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
>xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe
Hi,
If we make no changes it probably means that down the track we're likely to end
up with this:
http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx"
xmlns:a="http://flex.apache.org/ns";
xmlns:as="h
Hi,
> After all, I seriously think that what namespace there should be is
> irrelevant, the actual task is to make it so it is most flexible.
Which I agree with and and as a first step which was trying to remove the
namesapce URL from the MXML code. In AS you use package names via import to
spec
Hi,
> I think adding a default namespace only adds confusion.
As opposed to the confusion they do cause? :-)
It would make simple MXML easier to write (especial for people new to it) and
use but looks too many people are against the idea.
Not that I could do anything about it until we get has
I think adding a default namespace only adds confusion.
"So why do I leave this components namespace blank and set another?"
I would drop the idea for default namespaces
On Mar 16, 2012 6:37 PM, "Left Right" wrote:
> No-no-no :)
> Framework code is an extension, an add-on. There is absolutely n
No-no-no :)
Framework code is an extension, an add-on. There is absolutely no reason it
should get into "default" namespace. There is enough frustration as it is
about all sorts of non-built-in AS3 code that Adobe tossed into Flash CS,
and made the use mandatory. Please don't add even more to it. A
Hi,
> Now imagine you decided to put framework code forcefully into default
> namespace - you prevented everyone from using that namespace even though
> they might not be using the framework.
Not quite correct. They could use the names space and name it something else. I
think it could be smart e
Justin,
Unfortunately, you have to already tell the compiler what namespace to use
on the root node. This is because the system has already been built wrong.
Second, I don't think this is a very good idea in general, and especially
not if it should be handled by MXMLC code. This approach created
Hi,
Seems to be a variety of views here all from including trying to do away with
names spaces if we can :-) Certainly no consensus.
My original suggestion was just to have the standard URLs predefined but still
use name space names in MXML code.
The name space URIs are defined in flex-config
Om: not quite. There is one implied default namespace for any XML document,
it's something with w3c in the URI, it's the namespace where 'lang'
attribute goes for example. So, what I was saying in my first response is
that Flex could've had added one default namespace too, for example for
built-in
:55 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Flex and names spaces in MXML
Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML valid XML, it just
wouldn't prevent namespace collisions (because there is no namespace prefix).
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
On 12-03-14 1:54 PM, "David Francis Buhler" wrote:
>Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML valid XML, it
>just wouldn't prevent namespace collisions (because there is no
>namespace prefix).
Correct. XML NameSpaces are perhaps one of the most misunderstood
mechanisms on the plane
Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML valid XML, it
just wouldn't prevent namespace collisions (because there is no
namespace prefix).
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML not be valid XML.
>
> That'
Hi,
> Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML not be valid XML.
That's probably an issue.
Does anything currently require them to be 100% valid XML with namespaces
(compared to well formed XML missing namespaces)?
Thanks,
Justin
You still need a default namespace attribute at the top of the mxml
document. This allows you to use your components without having to use a
namespace prefix.
Thanks,
Om
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Left Right wrote:
> Hehe, found it :)
>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20090106154553/http:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Left Right wrote:
> Hehe, found it :)
>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20090106154553/http://opensource.adobe.com./wiki/display/flexsdk/MXML+2009
>
> Got to love this site some times.
>
> Best.
>
> Oleg
>
I don't think Gordon would disagree with you. I think he w
Sorry? Why? I think I can find some examples of Flex 4 beta code, where no
namespaces were used... It's from the time when Fx prefix was debated,
there were few builds that allowed MXML code w/o any namespaces, like
click me
etc.
Best.
Oleg
Omitting the xmlns attributes in MXML would make MXML not be valid XML.
- Gordon Smith, Adobe
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:44 AM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Flex and names spaces in MXML
Hi,
Hi,
> It doesn't really work that way.
I'm not saying have no namespaces but just define the likely ones by default.
You would still have to specify or to indicate which
list component you want to use.
And of course you still could define your own name spaces.
> So, if this problem was to b
It doesn't really work that way. Especially not since Flex 4.
There was an attempt at having no namespace at all and to assume mx
namespace to be the default. But since in Flex 4 there are a lot of
components in the SDK that come in two flowers, but with same names, but
not only that, the code gene
39 matches
Mail list logo
