You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2018/03/27 09:56:57 UTC
typeNames in View
Hi,
just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
Why View is not "View"?
thanks!
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Inline..
On 3/27/18, 2:06 PM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks Alex,
>
>but for your description seems like I could put a Group or a Container as
>a
>initalView, so I think View should have something more distinctive to make
>users use it instead of other aggregator.
View has an applicationModel property that Basic Application sets. Basic
Application tries to present a world where the Application itself is not a
display object (even though it currently is on both SWF and JS). And,
Basic Application sets up an MVC pattern.
If you look at the emulation of MX Application, it is set up totally
different. We have to make the Application look like Flex application
where you can place UI widgets as children of the Application.
IOW, this is Royale, not Flex. There is no "one right way" to do
anything. There can be different Application classes.
>In the other hand, regarding Harbs comment, I agree that "royale" is more
>the Application (in html is the html "body") since to me the top level is
>Application not View,
Also consider that in Flex, the SWF was not the body of the HTML page that
loaded the player, but rather, an Object tag buried somewhere within. I'm
not clear how folks will use custom HTML for Royale so I've been hesitant
to assign lots of styles to the Body.
>and I asume that you can have multiple views like in
>Flex Mobile, so this views will be swappable vía a navigator bar or
>similar
>(again like in flex mobile). I assume this is still not done in Royale,
>and
>we will do as we have some time to invest here, so for me a view seems
>more
>like a "piece" of the application, in other words: A view can be the login
>form in an application with two textfields, a login button, some links to
>remember password...etc... then this view will make the user goes to some
>other view with a menu or navigation bar that makes he/she able to switch
>to other views in application. For this reason View for me is one of the
>views, and typeNames="royale" seems not appropriate.
For now in Basic Application the initialView is not swappable. Not sure
how a Mobile Application should work, but we do have a few mobile examples
today. But I don't think we've put in finger gestures to change views.
I hadn't pictured the View being a temporary login for a Basic
Application. I figured that was a popup or state. In Mobile, we'll see.
And those might be a different kind of View.
>
>If you all agree we can change it a make View: typeNames = "View",
>although
>to make things coherent I'd left Application typeNames="Application"
>
I don't care too much what you call things. I just want to make sure we
don't bake in an assumption or requirement we are sorry about later.
-Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>2018-03-27 22:16 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> -Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container.
>> -Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar,
>> StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for
>> how children get added and removed.
>> -View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic
>> Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some
>> ViewNavigator.
>>
>> I'm not completely happy with the names of these things.
>>
>> HTH,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container..
>>but
>> >don't talk about View.
>> >
>> >What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
>> >use
>> >Group, but maybe I should use View...
>> >Container seems the same as Group...
>> >
>> >2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>> >>Rovira"
>> >> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>> >> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>> >> >Why View is not "View"?
>> >>
>> >> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
>> >> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal
>> >>style
>> >> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always
>>be
>> >> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that.
>>If
>> >> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Carlos Rovira
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d5
>> >940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636577708129102766&s
>> >data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1b7ea486cd5f408fce4708d5
>9426b0d1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636577816266003571&s
>data=dWCpiM8m9B8Kdh88YDJiwMm55v1%2Ftnb7cMv8MT4ib%2Bw%3D&reserved=0
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Thanks Alex,
but for your description seems like I could put a Group or a Container as a
initalView, so I think View should have something more distinctive to make
users use it instead of other aggregator.
In the other hand, regarding Harbs comment, I agree that "royale" is more
the Application (in html is the html "body") since to me the top level is
Application not View, and I asume that you can have multiple views like in
Flex Mobile, so this views will be swappable vía a navigator bar or similar
(again like in flex mobile). I assume this is still not done in Royale, and
we will do as we have some time to invest here, so for me a view seems more
like a "piece" of the application, in other words: A view can be the login
form in an application with two textfields, a login button, some links to
remember password...etc... then this view will make the user goes to some
other view with a menu or navigation bar that makes he/she able to switch
to other views in application. For this reason View for me is one of the
views, and typeNames="royale" seems not appropriate.
If you all agree we can change it a make View: typeNames = "View", although
to make things coherent I'd left Application typeNames="Application"
2018-03-27 22:16 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> -Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container.
> -Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar,
> StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for
> how children get added and removed.
> -View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic
> Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some
> ViewNavigator.
>
> I'm not completely happy with the names of these things.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. but
> >don't talk about View.
> >
> >What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
> >use
> >Group, but maybe I should use View...
> >Container seems the same as Group...
> >
> >2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>Rovira"
> >> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
> >> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
> >> >Why View is not "View"?
> >>
> >> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
> >> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal
> >>style
> >> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
> >> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
> >> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d5
> >940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636577708129102766&s
> >data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Thanks Alex, Peter,
I don't see a problem with names with this classes...just that for me seems
there's much more, but maybe due to the fact problem with Flash...but in my
mind that should not be a problem and for me a refactor could be more to
collapse Container (remove it and put any functionality in Group or
something), so apart of "base" classes we came with Group and View.
Group could be like in flex light way to group various child, and view use
to be a bit more complex maybe with skin capabilities. Just thinking loud...
Maybe if there's plans to refactor, we can delay the typeNames refactor I
propose...is not critical, just seems something strange right now
thanks!
2018-03-28 16:42 GMT+02:00 Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> The differences exist mainly because of the Player and its lack of native
> support for scrolling. I created these classes as a building block and I
> tried to keep it as PAYG as possible.
>
> If you do not really want to use the Player, then just use Group. When you
> need scrolling, add to that specific Group's style, "overflow:auto" (or
> some derivation).
>
> The Container and View classes are as Alex describes. There is also
> DataContainer, the basis for the lists.
>
> Just to clear things up, these classes are really a Base + MXML support.
> For instance there is GroupBase and Group. Group, Container, DataContainer
> have the stuff in them to make MXML work whereas their Base classes
> contain the common stuff.
>
> I'm also not happy with the names, but that's what I came up with. We
> might want to do a massive refactor before official release 1.0
>
> ‹peter
>
> On 3/27/18, 4:16 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >-Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container.
> >-Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar,
> >StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for
> >how children get added and removed.
> >-View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic
> >Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some
> >ViewNavigator.
> >
> >I'm not completely happy with the names of these things.
> >
> >HTH,
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> Rovira"
> ><carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container..
> >>but
> >>don't talk about View.
> >>
> >>What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
> >>use
> >>Group, but maybe I should use View...
> >>Container seems the same as Group...
> >>
> >>2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>>Rovira"
> >>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
> >>> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
> >>> >Why View is not "View"?
> >>>
> >>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
> >>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal
> >>>style
> >>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
> >>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
> >>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
> >>>
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Carlos Rovira
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2
> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d
> >>5
> >>940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636577708129102766&
> >>s
> >>data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
The differences exist mainly because of the Player and its lack of native
support for scrolling. I created these classes as a building block and I
tried to keep it as PAYG as possible.
If you do not really want to use the Player, then just use Group. When you
need scrolling, add to that specific Group's style, "overflow:auto" (or
some derivation).
The Container and View classes are as Alex describes. There is also
DataContainer, the basis for the lists.
Just to clear things up, these classes are really a Base + MXML support.
For instance there is GroupBase and Group. Group, Container, DataContainer
have the stuff in them to make MXML work whereas their Base classes
contain the common stuff.
I'm also not happy with the names, but that's what I came up with. We
might want to do a massive refactor before official release 1.0
‹peter
On 3/27/18, 4:16 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>-Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container.
>-Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar,
>StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for
>how children get added and removed.
>-View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic
>Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some
>ViewNavigator.
>
>I'm not completely happy with the names of these things.
>
>HTH,
>-Alex
>
>On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
><carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container..
>>but
>>don't talk about View.
>>
>>What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
>>use
>>Group, but maybe I should use View...
>>Container seems the same as Group...
>>
>>2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>>Rovira"
>>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi,
>>> >
>>> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>>> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>>> >Why View is not "View"?
>>>
>>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
>>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal
>>>style
>>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
>>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
>>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Carlos Rovira
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2
>>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d
>>5
>>940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636577708129102766&
>>s
>>data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0
>
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
-Group is like Flex Group. The lightest weight container.
-Container is heavier and supports custom chrome like a TitleBar,
StatusBar, etc. And thus an internal content pane and abstractions for
how children get added and removed.
-View is for top-level containers. Currently as the tag for Basic
Application's initialView and potentially for Mobile apps in some
ViewNavigator.
I'm not completely happy with the names of these things.
HTH,
-Alex
On 3/27/18, 11:06 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. but
>don't talk about View.
>
>What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
>use
>Group, but maybe I should use View...
>Container seems the same as Group...
>
>2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>> >Why View is not "View"?
>>
>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal
>>style
>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C41d1a9e8821744cc133408d5
>940d7f1b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636577708129102766&s
>data=52oFkHbaD1oAPeCDBRpDQXdou7N5V8DHBEcQgF60kno%3D&reserved=0
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
View is generally the top level div in the app.
I do like having something as identifying the content as a royale app, although it could probably be on Application instead of View.
Harbs
> On Mar 27, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> btw, I think typeName for View should be "View" win order to be coherent
> with the rest of classes
>
> 2018-03-27 20:06 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>
>> Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. but
>> don't talk about View.
>>
>> What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
>> use Group, but maybe I should use View...
>> Container seems the same as Group...
>>
>> 2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>>>> while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>>>> Why View is not "View"?
>>>
>>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
>>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal style
>>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
>>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
>>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
btw, I think typeName for View should be "View" win order to be coherent
with the rest of classes
2018-03-27 20:06 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
> Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. but
> don't talk about View.
>
> What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I
> use Group, but maybe I should use View...
> Container seems the same as Group...
>
> 2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>> >Why View is not "View"?
>>
>> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
>> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal style
>> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
>> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
>> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Ok, I was reading old FlexJS email from Peter about Group, Container.. but
don't talk about View.
What's the main difference between Group, Conatiner and View? normaly I use
Group, but maybe I should use View...
Container seems the same as Group...
2018-03-27 18:31 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>
> On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
> >while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
> >Why View is not "View"?
>
> Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
> obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal style
> changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
> top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
> other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
>
> -Alex
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: typeNames in View
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 3/27/18, 2:56 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>just wondering why "View" has typenames="royale"
>while Application is "Application or Group is "Group"
>Why View is not "View"?
Because it is meant to act as the top of the DOM and it seemed more
obvious to tell folks to update the "royale" class to get universal style
changes. View might get re-used in other context and may not always be
top-level. Flex Mobile apps had ViewNavigators and stuff like that. If
other folks want to change it, that's fine with me.
-Alex