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 2018/02/24 18:21:14 UTC
Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Hi,
my plan with themes is to use SVG extensively a long with CSS.
The problem with SVG is that is not supported in IE8 and Android 2.3.
For me this is not a problem but want to comment here so folks can comment
if is or not something to take into account.
Thanks
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
At the time we started at Apache in 2012, one major customer was
standardized on IE8.
Sure, IE is extra work, but that is a potential good thing for us. We are
in the business of encapsulating repeating patterns. If there is a set of
beads that are IE fixes and Royale is the easiest way to build web apps
for IE, we win. Lemons into Lemonade.
There are/were many large corporations who used Flex for intranet use
only. Naturally, any customer-facing Flex apps would support modern
browsers. But there were many internal-facing apps where the employee was
given a desktop running IE, just like employees used to be given a
terminal to type on. It is locked down, you can't add plugins, etc.
I will ask around Adobe this week and see if I can get more recent
information.
-Alex
On 2/25/18, 12:56 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even
>imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something
>sophisticated in IE.
>My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client
>wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always
>trippled
>the price because it was a nightmare. :)
>
>I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of
>thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time
>has
>come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There
>were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :)
>
>IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :)
>
>Thanks,
>Piotr
>
>On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
>> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not
>>with
>> old ones.
>> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
>> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least
>>in
>> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
>> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
>> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
>> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
>>
>> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used
>>and
>> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but
>>the
>> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have
>>almost
>> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what
>>system
>> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
>> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
>> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
>> that needs to have that support.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Hi Harbs,
>> >
>> > if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I
>>think it
>> > will make more easy for new comers to get it
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back
>>to
>> >> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>> >>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551458434992412&sdata=Yzr4BTAHY37BBPXleMJGY
>>XVDzZvxJ4RXDgQmdbZj%2Ft0%3D&reserved=0 <
>> >>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551458434992412&sdata=Yzr4BTAHY37BBPXleMJGY
>>XVDzZvxJ4RXDgQmdbZj%2Ft0%3D&reserved=0>
>> >>
>> >> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>> >> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
>>instead
>> of
>> >> bracket access.
>> >>
>> >> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>> >>
>> >> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
>>things
>> >> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
>>ASDoc
>> >> very well…
>> >>
>> >> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
>> Not
>> >> sure…
>> >>
>> >> HTH,
>> >> Harbs
>> >>
>> >> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>> >> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means
>>Dictionary
>> >> with
>> >> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>> >> related
>> >> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>> exactly)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> >
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408
>>d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655145843499241
>>2&sdata=ZgekNt7mbqhywsR90rmC6P0wFw19poXgS1f95Q091aI%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408
>>d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655145843499241
>>2&sdata=ZgekNt7mbqhywsR90rmC6P0wFw19poXgS1f95Q091aI%3D&reserved=0
>>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
FWIW: I’ve had browser-specific problems with every browser: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge and IE.
Also: MDL is pretty bad on IE and Edge. We’re probably getting rid of the use of MDL Sliders to support Edge and IE. Fixing it is too difficult.
Harbs
> On Feb 25, 2018, at 7:09 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> So Chrome and IE11 should be our target, although for me test in IE11 is
> almost impossible since I'm on a Mac.
> but seems the right to do, and we can forget IE8,9&10
>
> I only hope IE11 could be as much as possible to standards nowadays...
>
> 2018-02-25 11:26 GMT+01:00 Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Some data points:
>>
>> One of my client’s recently reported browser usage from a sampling of
>> close to 70,000 users. (IE 11 is the only version of IE that’s supported.)
>>
>> Chrome was the #1 browser at 53.5%.
>> IE 11 was #2 at 24%
>> 3, 4, and 5 were Safari, Firefox and Edge respectively.
>>
>> With those kinds of percentages, I don’t think we should be dropping IE 11
>> support. I’m not sure about IE 10 or IE 9.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even
>>> imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something
>>> sophisticated in IE.
>>> My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client
>>> wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always
>> trippled
>>> the price because it was a nightmare. :)
>>>
>>> I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of
>>> thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time
>> has
>>> come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There
>>> were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :)
>>>
>>> IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
>>>> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not
>> with
>>>> old ones.
>>>> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
>>>> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least
>> in
>>>> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
>>>> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
>>>> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
>>>> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
>>>>
>>>> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used
>> and
>>>> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but
>> the
>>>> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have
>> almost
>>>> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what
>> system
>>>> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
>>>> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
>>>> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
>>>> that needs to have that support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>>
>>>>> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think
>> it
>>>>> will make more easy for new comers to get it
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>>>>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>>>>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
>>>>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>>>>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
>> instead
>>>> of
>>>>>> bracket access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
>> things
>>>>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
>> ASDoc
>>>>>> very well…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
>>>> Not
>>>>>> sure…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>>>>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>>>>>> related
>>>>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>>>> exactly)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
So Chrome and IE11 should be our target, although for me test in IE11 is
almost impossible since I'm on a Mac.
but seems the right to do, and we can forget IE8,9&10
I only hope IE11 could be as much as possible to standards nowadays...
2018-02-25 11:26 GMT+01:00 Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
> Some data points:
>
> One of my client’s recently reported browser usage from a sampling of
> close to 70,000 users. (IE 11 is the only version of IE that’s supported.)
>
> Chrome was the #1 browser at 53.5%.
> IE 11 was #2 at 24%
> 3, 4, and 5 were Safari, Firefox and Edge respectively.
>
> With those kinds of percentages, I don’t think we should be dropping IE 11
> support. I’m not sure about IE 10 or IE 9.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even
> > imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something
> > sophisticated in IE.
> > My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client
> > wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always
> trippled
> > the price because it was a nightmare. :)
> >
> > I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of
> > thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time
> has
> > come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There
> > were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :)
> >
> > IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
> >> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not
> with
> >> old ones.
> >> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
> >> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least
> in
> >> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
> >> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
> >> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
> >> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
> >>
> >> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used
> and
> >> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but
> the
> >> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have
> almost
> >> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what
> system
> >> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
> >> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
> >> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
> >> that needs to have that support.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>
> >>> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think
> it
> >>> will make more easy for new comers to get it
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> >>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> >>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
> >>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
> >>>>
> >>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> >>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
> instead
> >> of
> >>>> bracket access.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
> things
> >>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
> ASDoc
> >>>> very well…
> >>>>
> >>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
> >> Not
> >>>> sure…
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH,
> >>>> Harbs
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> >>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
> >>>> with
> >>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
> >>>> related
> >>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
> >> exactly)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Some data points:
One of my client’s recently reported browser usage from a sampling of close to 70,000 users. (IE 11 is the only version of IE that’s supported.)
Chrome was the #1 browser at 53.5%.
IE 11 was #2 at 24%
3, 4, and 5 were Safari, Firefox and Edge respectively.
With those kinds of percentages, I don’t think we should be dropping IE 11 support. I’m not sure about IE 10 or IE 9.
Harbs
> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even
> imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something
> sophisticated in IE.
> My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client
> wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always trippled
> the price because it was a nightmare. :)
>
> I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of
> thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time has
> come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There
> were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :)
>
> IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :)
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
>> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not with
>> old ones.
>> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
>> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least in
>> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
>> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
>> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
>> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
>>
>> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used and
>> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but the
>> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have almost
>> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what system
>> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
>> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
>> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
>> that needs to have that support.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>
>>> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think it
>>> will make more easy for new comers to get it
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
>>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
>>>>
>>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead
>> of
>>>> bracket access.
>>>>
>>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>>>
>>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
>>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
>>>> very well…
>>>>
>>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
>> Not
>>>> sure…
>>>>
>>>> HTH,
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
>>>> with
>>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>>>> related
>>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>> exactly)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even
imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something
sophisticated in IE.
My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client
wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always trippled
the price because it was a nightmare. :)
I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of
thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time has
come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There
were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :)
IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :)
Thanks,
Piotr
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not with
> old ones.
> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least in
> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
>
> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used and
> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but the
> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have almost
> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what system
> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
> that needs to have that support.
>
>
>
> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think it
> > will make more easy for new comers to get it
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> >> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> >> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
> >> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
> >>
> >> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> >> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead
> of
> >> bracket access.
> >>
> >> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
> >>
> >> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
> >> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
> >> very well…
> >>
> >> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
> Not
> >> sure…
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> >> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
> >> with
> >> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
> >> related
> >> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
> exactly)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating
Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not with
old ones.
If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and
Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least in
Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into
account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a
nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we
don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us.
So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used and
when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but the
feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have almost
all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what system
versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we
can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking
things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there
that needs to have that support.
2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
> Hi Harbs,
>
> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think it
> will make more easy for new comers to get it
>
> Thanks
>
> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
>>
>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead of
>> bracket access.
>>
>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>
>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
>> very well…
>>
>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not
>> sure…
>>
>> HTH,
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
>> with
>> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>> related
>> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
It’s not. Dictionary supports indexed access. ObjectMap requires set and get.
Harbs
> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Harbs,
>
> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think it
> will make more easy for new comers to get it
>
> Thanks
>
> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>
>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap> <
>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>>
>>
>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead of
>> bracket access.
>>
>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>
>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
>> very well…
>>
>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not
>> sure…
>>
>> HTH,
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary with
>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something related
>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira <http://about.me/carlosrovira>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Harbs,
if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think it
will make more easy for new comers to get it
Thanks
2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
>
> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead of
> bracket access.
>
> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>
> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
> very well…
>
> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not
> sure…
>
> HTH,
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary with
> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something related
> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 2/24/18, 11:14 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I’m thinking that we should just add a Flash implementation of Map and
>WeakMap so users can simply use them directly. If they’re targeting
>browsers which support those classes, there’s no reason to have the
>overhead of an extra class to act as a proxy.
That's fine if you want to do that. We are hearing pushback about how
much code you have to touch to migrate so it feels like the momentum is
shifting towards making rough approximations of Spark and MX and maybe
even Flash APIs that don't guarantee 100% compatibility, just what is good
enough.
>
>I do think we should replace the good event library for a few reasons:
>1. I’m pretty sure that it’s heavier than we really need.
I think once we make IE11 the base, we can be more serious about tossing
out goog.events. I think it still is needed to handle <IE11.
>2. Like Alex mentions, there’s likely additional features we want.
If we did make IE11 the base, I would be tempted to just dispatch events
off the wrapped HTMLElements. AIUI, it supports bubble, capture and the
stopPropagations. But that would mean that weak reference listeners and
priority wouldn't have support. We might be able to hack weak reference
listeners by wrapping the listener as the value in a WeakMap. Maybe the
API report needs to indicate whether someone used the weak reference or
priority parameters on addEventListener.
>3. I really wish we had the *option* to output node-style requires
>instead of good.require. If we could output node-style modules and
>requires, node modules could be first class citizens in Royale JS apps.
>Reliance on the closure libraries makes that much more difficult.
We do have the option. Someone just has to write the emitter for it.
There are relatively few touch points in the compiler for Google Closure
Library and they are all meant to be replaceable.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
>My $0.02,
>Harbs
>
>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 6:03 AM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> With respect Alex, that does not sound too convincing to me. It is very
>> 'what if' based.
>> In my experience working within large enterprise (only pharma - which
>>might
>> not be typical) anything that was not officially supported with security
>> updates was very quickly avoided.
>>
>> It would be a shame to hold back Royale based on that kind of premise
>> unless it was validated, imo.
>> One 'PAYG' option for this type of thing might be to not try to code too
>> much 'polyfill' stuff into the framework itself and perhaps require
>> external standardized polyfills as external js libs for the older
>>browsers.
>> This seems to be what React has done [1]
>> That approach would still be limiting for features that can only be
>> addressed as polyfills though, and I'm pretty sure WeakMap is not one of
>> those.
>>
>> In terms of the weak reference listeners, perhaps WeakMap would allow
>>the
>> possibility of actually achieving something there - I'm not sure
>>(although
>> I expect it would probably be challenging), but I can't imagine getting
>> close to it without something like that to start with.
>>
>> 1.https://reactjs.org/docs/javascript-environment-requirements.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am told (no way to prove it) that if you are big enough company, you
>>>can
>>> get an extended support deal for one older version of IE than most
>>>people
>>> think you can. And many big companies standardize on IE using it
>>>almost
>>> like old green-screen terminals from before many of you were born.
>>>
>>> It would be really sad if some huge company came up to us and said
>>>"we're
>>> ready to migrate to Royale if you support IE(x)" and we said no and
>>>lost
>>> the participation. Since we can't easily react quickly to retrofitting
>>> old IE versions, I am tempted to make sure we work on IE one version
>>>back.
>>> That used to be 8 when we first started, right now it is 9, but it
>>>might
>>> be safe to go to 10, especially if it is a component set and not
>>>somewhere
>>> in the core.
>>>
>>> One other point to consider: Dictionary might be implementable on
>>> WeakMap, but I'm more concerned about weak reference event listeners
>>>(not
>>> to mention, priority listeners) that are two things Flash supports that
>>> Google Closure Library's event subsystem does not. How and when would
>>>we
>>> write such a thing and test it well enough to know it will work well
>>> enough to cut over to it and replace GCL's event subsystem that we
>>> currently use?
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 2/24/18, 3:52 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually I'm even more for forget about IE11 and take care of Edge,
>>>>Chrom
>>>> and Firefox. Before we got 1.0 maybe IE11 finally die. Sorry my
>>>>experience
>>>> with that browser is awful.
>>>>
>>>> Piotr
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-24 22:19 GMT+01:00 Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need
>>>>>to
>>>>> support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
>>>>> browsers seems to hold Royale back?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support
>>>>>for
>>>>> them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could
>>>>>be an
>>>>> explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
>>>>> It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility
>>>>>is/should be
>>>>> for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given
>>>>> that
>>>>> time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
>>>>> If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by
>>>>>Royale
>>>>> users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
>>>>> should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any
>>>>>more...
>>>>> just a thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>>>> ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
>>> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>>>> Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
>>> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
>>> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>>>> 2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0 <
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>>>> ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
>>> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>>>> Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
>>> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
>>> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>>>> 2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>>>>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of
>>>>>> bracket access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
>>>>> things
>>>>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
>>>>> ASDoc
>>>>>> very well…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable)
>>>>>>proxies.
>>>>> Not
>>>>>> sure…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>>>>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means
>>>>>>>Dictionary
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>>>>> related
>>>>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>>>>> exactly)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>>
>>>> Patreon:
>>>> *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>>>> eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>>> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
>>>> 15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>>>> 56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
>>> reserved=0
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>>>> eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>>> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
>>>> 15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>>>> 56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
>>> reserved=0
>>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
I’m thinking that we should just add a Flash implementation of Map and WeakMap so users can simply use them directly. If they’re targeting browsers which support those classes, there’s no reason to have the overhead of an extra class to act as a proxy.
I do think we should replace the good event library for a few reasons:
1. I’m pretty sure that it’s heavier than we really need.
2. Like Alex mentions, there’s likely additional features we want.
3. I really wish we had the *option* to output node-style requires instead of good.require. If we could output node-style modules and requires, node modules could be first class citizens in Royale JS apps. Reliance on the closure libraries makes that much more difficult.
My $0.02,
Harbs
> On Feb 25, 2018, at 6:03 AM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With respect Alex, that does not sound too convincing to me. It is very
> 'what if' based.
> In my experience working within large enterprise (only pharma - which might
> not be typical) anything that was not officially supported with security
> updates was very quickly avoided.
>
> It would be a shame to hold back Royale based on that kind of premise
> unless it was validated, imo.
> One 'PAYG' option for this type of thing might be to not try to code too
> much 'polyfill' stuff into the framework itself and perhaps require
> external standardized polyfills as external js libs for the older browsers.
> This seems to be what React has done [1]
> That approach would still be limiting for features that can only be
> addressed as polyfills though, and I'm pretty sure WeakMap is not one of
> those.
>
> In terms of the weak reference listeners, perhaps WeakMap would allow the
> possibility of actually achieving something there - I'm not sure (although
> I expect it would probably be challenging), but I can't imagine getting
> close to it without something like that to start with.
>
> 1.https://reactjs.org/docs/javascript-environment-requirements.html
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I am told (no way to prove it) that if you are big enough company, you can
>> get an extended support deal for one older version of IE than most people
>> think you can. And many big companies standardize on IE using it almost
>> like old green-screen terminals from before many of you were born.
>>
>> It would be really sad if some huge company came up to us and said "we're
>> ready to migrate to Royale if you support IE(x)" and we said no and lost
>> the participation. Since we can't easily react quickly to retrofitting
>> old IE versions, I am tempted to make sure we work on IE one version back.
>> That used to be 8 when we first started, right now it is 9, but it might
>> be safe to go to 10, especially if it is a component set and not somewhere
>> in the core.
>>
>> One other point to consider: Dictionary might be implementable on
>> WeakMap, but I'm more concerned about weak reference event listeners (not
>> to mention, priority listeners) that are two things Flash supports that
>> Google Closure Library's event subsystem does not. How and when would we
>> write such a thing and test it well enough to know it will work well
>> enough to cut over to it and replace GCL's event subsystem that we
>> currently use?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 2/24/18, 3:52 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I'm even more for forget about IE11 and take care of Edge, Chrom
>>> and Firefox. Before we got 1.0 maybe IE11 finally die. Sorry my experience
>>> with that browser is awful.
>>>
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> 2018-02-24 22:19 GMT+01:00 Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need to
>>>> support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
>>>> browsers seems to hold Royale back?
>>>>
>>>> If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support for
>>>> them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could be an
>>>> explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
>>>> It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility is/should be
>>>> for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given
>>>> that
>>>> time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
>>>> If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by Royale
>>>> users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
>>>> should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any more...
>>>> just a thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>>>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>>> ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
>> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>>> Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
>> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
>> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>>> 2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0 <
>>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>>> ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
>> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>>> Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
>> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
>> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>>> 2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>>>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
>>>> instead
>>>> of
>>>>> bracket access.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
>>>> things
>>>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
>>>> ASDoc
>>>>> very well…
>>>>>
>>>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
>>>> Not
>>>>> sure…
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH,
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>>>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
>>>> with
>>>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>>>> related
>>>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>>>> exactly)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> Patreon:
>>> *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>>> eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
>>> 15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>>> 56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
>> reserved=0
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>>> eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
>>> 15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>>> 56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
>> reserved=0
>>>> *
>>
>>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
With respect Alex, that does not sound too convincing to me. It is very
'what if' based.
In my experience working within large enterprise (only pharma - which might
not be typical) anything that was not officially supported with security
updates was very quickly avoided.
It would be a shame to hold back Royale based on that kind of premise
unless it was validated, imo.
One 'PAYG' option for this type of thing might be to not try to code too
much 'polyfill' stuff into the framework itself and perhaps require
external standardized polyfills as external js libs for the older browsers.
This seems to be what React has done [1]
That approach would still be limiting for features that can only be
addressed as polyfills though, and I'm pretty sure WeakMap is not one of
those.
In terms of the weak reference listeners, perhaps WeakMap would allow the
possibility of actually achieving something there - I'm not sure (although
I expect it would probably be challenging), but I can't imagine getting
close to it without something like that to start with.
1.https://reactjs.org/docs/javascript-environment-requirements.html
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I am told (no way to prove it) that if you are big enough company, you can
> get an extended support deal for one older version of IE than most people
> think you can. And many big companies standardize on IE using it almost
> like old green-screen terminals from before many of you were born.
>
> It would be really sad if some huge company came up to us and said "we're
> ready to migrate to Royale if you support IE(x)" and we said no and lost
> the participation. Since we can't easily react quickly to retrofitting
> old IE versions, I am tempted to make sure we work on IE one version back.
> That used to be 8 when we first started, right now it is 9, but it might
> be safe to go to 10, especially if it is a component set and not somewhere
> in the core.
>
> One other point to consider: Dictionary might be implementable on
> WeakMap, but I'm more concerned about weak reference event listeners (not
> to mention, priority listeners) that are two things Flash supports that
> Google Closure Library's event subsystem does not. How and when would we
> write such a thing and test it well enough to know it will work well
> enough to cut over to it and replace GCL's event subsystem that we
> currently use?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/24/18, 3:52 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually I'm even more for forget about IE11 and take care of Edge, Chrom
> >and Firefox. Before we got 1.0 maybe IE11 finally die. Sorry my experience
> >with that browser is awful.
> >
> >Piotr
> >
> >2018-02-24 22:19 GMT+01:00 Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need to
> >> support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
> >> browsers seems to hold Royale back?
> >>
> >> If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support for
> >> them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could be an
> >> explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
> >> It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility is/should be
> >> for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given
> >>that
> >> time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
> >> If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by Royale
> >> users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
> >> should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any more...
> >> just a thought.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> >> > regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> >> >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
> >>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
> >>Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
> >>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
> >>2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0 <
> >> >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
> >>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%
> 2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
> >>Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1
> a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
> >>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=
> valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
> >>2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0>
> >> >
> >> > It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> >> > references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
> >>instead
> >> of
> >> > bracket access.
> >> >
> >> > I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
> >> >
> >> > What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
> >>things
> >> > with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
> >>ASDoc
> >> > very well…
> >> >
> >> > There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
> >>Not
> >> > sure…
> >> >
> >> > HTH,
> >> > Harbs
> >> >
> >> > > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> >> > > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
> >> with
> >> > > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
> >> related
> >> > > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
> >>exactly)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> >Patreon:
> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
> >15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
> >56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
> reserved=0
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cc64c7138af9b40
> >15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
> >56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&
> reserved=0
> >>*
>
>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I am told (no way to prove it) that if you are big enough company, you can
get an extended support deal for one older version of IE than most people
think you can. And many big companies standardize on IE using it almost
like old green-screen terminals from before many of you were born.
It would be really sad if some huge company came up to us and said "we're
ready to migrate to Royale if you support IE(x)" and we said no and lost
the participation. Since we can't easily react quickly to retrofitting
old IE versions, I am tempted to make sure we work on IE one version back.
That used to be 8 when we first started, right now it is 9, but it might
be safe to go to 10, especially if it is a component set and not somewhere
in the core.
One other point to consider: Dictionary might be implementable on
WeakMap, but I'm more concerned about weak reference event listeners (not
to mention, priority listeners) that are two things Flash supports that
Google Closure Library's event subsystem does not. How and when would we
write such a thing and test it well enough to know it will work well
enough to cut over to it and replace GCL's event subsystem that we
currently use?
-Alex
On 2/24/18, 3:52 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Actually I'm even more for forget about IE11 and take care of Edge, Chrom
>and Firefox. Before we got 1.0 maybe IE11 finally die. Sorry my experience
>with that browser is awful.
>
>Piotr
>
>2018-02-24 22:19 GMT+01:00 Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>:
>
>> That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need to
>> support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
>> browsers seems to hold Royale back?
>>
>> If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support for
>> them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could be an
>> explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
>> It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility is/should be
>> for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given
>>that
>> time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
>> If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by Royale
>> users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
>> should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any more...
>> just a thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
>> > regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
>> >
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0 <
>> >
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap
>>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7
>>Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b4015721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551131356035194&sdata=valyv5NoYslvqIDjyvhZy
>>2iMlLDQy9ZNnZBmAlvHMkg%3D&reserved=0>
>> >
>> > It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
>> > references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set()
>>instead
>> of
>> > bracket access.
>> >
>> > I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>> >
>> > What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird
>>things
>> > with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the
>>ASDoc
>> > very well…
>> >
>> > There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies.
>>Not
>> > sure…
>> >
>> > HTH,
>> > Harbs
>> >
>> > > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
>> > > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
>> with
>> > > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
>> related
>> > > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall
>>exactly)
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon:
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b40
>15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&reserved=0
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc64c7138af9b40
>15721b08d57be1a08b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365511313
>56035194&sdata=Q9k5PXy5ajgQoGMH37z2h%2BPvdlQPlVy1i4u5SQFAFfQ%3D&reserved=0
>>*
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Actually I'm even more for forget about IE11 and take care of Edge, Chrom
and Firefox. Before we got 1.0 maybe IE11 finally die. Sorry my experience
with that browser is awful.
Piotr
2018-02-24 22:19 GMT+01:00 Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>:
> That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need to
> support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
> browsers seems to hold Royale back?
>
> If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support for
> them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could be an
> explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
> It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility is/should be
> for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given that
> time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
> If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by Royale
> users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
> should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any more...
> just a thought.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> > regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> > http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
> > http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
> >
> > It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> > references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead
> of
> > bracket access.
> >
> > I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
> >
> > What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
> > with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
> > very well…
> >
> > There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not
> > sure…
> >
> > HTH,
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> > > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary
> with
> > > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something
> related
> > > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
> >
> >
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
That sounds great Harbs, so I guess the question is more: do we need to
support IE10 and below, because targeting official support for these
browsers seems to hold Royale back?
If we did not do that, then we can avoid the 'just in case' support for
them (legacy browser compatibility in classes like ObjectMap could be an
explicit PAYG choice instead of default).
It really hinges on what the baseline browser compatibility is/should be
for Royale, and I think that might simply need a revisit/review given that
time has passed and more will pass before 1.0.
If IE10 and under holds us back a lot, and if it is unvalued by Royale
users (idk whether it is or not, this is up for debate) then maybe it
should not be part of the 'Basic' browser compatibility set any more...
just a thought.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to
> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <
> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
>
> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak
> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead of
> bracket access.
>
> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
>
> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things
> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc
> very well…
>
> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not
> sure…
>
> HTH,
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary with
> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something related
> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
>
>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported.
http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap <http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap>
It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() instead of bracket access.
I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit.
What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird things with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the ASDoc very well…
There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. Not sure…
HTH,
Harbs
> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary with
> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something related
> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
OT: Just curious, but I don't understand why anything below IE11 is a
compatibility-required target anymore.
If the argument is that it needs to be supported for legacy enterprise
clients, that seems at odds with most responsible enterprise IT policies:
technical and security updates for ie10 and older ceased 2 years ago [1]
I would expect a lack of security updates to trigger a move inside
enterprise users, even those that were 'holding back', usually this would
happen before the support is no longer available, but the 2 years since
should have addressed those users (my opinion only, did not research this -
keen to hear feedback about the 'reality' ).
If IE11 became the lowest supported MS browser for Royale then I think you
can assume things like WeakMap are available [2] (in the case of WeakMap,
perhaps it is available 'enough' because it is only a partial
implementation with IE11). That might make porting some legacy Flex code a
lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary with
weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something related
to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall exactly)
Anyhow, this is not a request - just a prompt for discussion, in case it
was not asked before (or was not reviewed in the last 2 years).
I'm mentioning this here because it relates to Alex's comments below, but
if you feel it is worth pursuing as discussion, it probably warrants a new
thread.
1.https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/end-of-ie-support
2.http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/#test-WeakMap
3.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/WeakMap
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Royale has given up on IE8. More things work with IE9, but it might be
> time to give up on IE9 as well.
>
> Don't know about Android versions, but IMO, that's why we offer choices of
> themes and what not. As long as we document the limitations, we are good
> to go.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/24/18, 10:21 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >my plan with themes is to use SVG extensively a long with CSS.
> >
> >The problem with SVG is that is not supported in IE8 and Android 2.3.
> >
> >For me this is not a problem but want to comment here so folks can comment
> >if is or not something to take into account.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C0d551fe9c93c4c91b53b08d5
> >7bb376d4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636550933079894998&s
> >data=1HHFLhUY61Nt0oeK2mKzem0o4XquRKDtr%2FDNgbF0vDM%3D&reserved=0
>
>
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
That's right, we can make a Vivid theme with SVG and other people could
make a theme with PNGs...so I think is ok as well...
2018-02-24 19:30 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Royale has given up on IE8. More things work with IE9, but it might be
> time to give up on IE9 as well.
>
> Don't know about Android versions, but IMO, that's why we offer choices of
> themes and what not. As long as we document the limitations, we are good
> to go.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/24/18, 10:21 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >my plan with themes is to use SVG extensively a long with CSS.
> >
> >The problem with SVG is that is not supported in IE8 and Android 2.3.
> >
> >For me this is not a problem but want to comment here so folks can comment
> >if is or not something to take into account.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C0d551fe9c93c4c91b53b08d5
> >7bb376d4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636550933079894998&s
> >data=1HHFLhUY61Nt0oeK2mKzem0o4XquRKDtr%2FDNgbF0vDM%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Support for SVG in older browsers and Operating Systems.
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Royale has given up on IE8. More things work with IE9, but it might be
time to give up on IE9 as well.
Don't know about Android versions, but IMO, that's why we offer choices of
themes and what not. As long as we document the limitations, we are good
to go.
-Alex
On 2/24/18, 10:21 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>my plan with themes is to use SVG extensively a long with CSS.
>
>The problem with SVG is that is not supported in IE8 and Android 2.3.
>
>For me this is not a problem but want to comment here so folks can comment
>if is or not something to take into account.
>
>Thanks
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0d551fe9c93c4c91b53b08d5
>7bb376d4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636550933079894998&s
>data=1HHFLhUY61Nt0oeK2mKzem0o4XquRKDtr%2FDNgbF0vDM%3D&reserved=0