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 2018/09/05 09:17:04 UTC
About differences between versions with/without Basic
Hi,
Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with Basic.
Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know at
this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView, and
more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
added by this merge.
Other things that I think are not related to are:
1.- for App.css just this:
.DataItemRenderer {
}
.StringItemRenderer {
cursor: pointer;
padding-bottom: 4px;
flex-grow: 1;
flex-shrink: 0;
padding-top: 4px;
}
So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
.DataItemRenderer {
}
.Group {
}
....
.Group {
}
.HGroup {
}
.VGroup {
}
.Container {
}
.Image {
}
Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
2.- Regarding App.js
is very similar, we have around
*8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
* and this 2 pieces of code
"org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
function() {this["iBeadView"] =
org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
this["iItemRenderer"] =
org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
0,
1,
...
"org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
this["iBeadController"] =
org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
0,
1,
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Total right! :)
El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 12:15, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> You already have a Jewel DataContainer. I’m not sure it’s actually used
> anywhere, and maybe that’s the right way to go. I’m still finding my way
> around. I’m working on catching up to you and exploring as I go. ;-)
>
> I’m looking at this as a learning exercise. I’m trying to figure out what
> we *can* and *can’t* do. Once I’m clearer on what the options are, we can
> discuss what’s the *right* way to handle it.
>
> Makes sense?
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok Harbs,
> > but it'd be ok to create a Jewel DataContainer...in fact It would be the
> > right thing to do, but I can create some time later if you want
> > thanks
> >
> > El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 12:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
> >
> >> (To be clear, we can solve this problem by not using
> >> org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer as a base class, but I’d like to
> >> address the core problem if possible.)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I just committed a change where I declare different css in Jewel
> >> DataGroup. This makes the declaration in (html) DataContainer never used
> >> anywhere. Why is it still bringing in classes?
> >>>
> >>> Here’s what we get in JewelExample:
> >>>
> >>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> >>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> >>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> >>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> >>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> >>> this["iBeadModel"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> >>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> >>> this["iViewportModel"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> >>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.list.DataGroup",
> >>> function() {this["iItemRenderer"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.jewel.itemRenderers.StringItemRenderer;
> >>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.Viewport;
> >>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.jewel.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout},
> >>>
> >>> Alex, do you have any thoughts here?
> >>>
> >>> Harbs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Carlos,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is very good news! :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to
> >> the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it
> >> matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel
> >> DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with
> those
> >> changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in
> the
> >> Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can
> >> figure that out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with
> >> Basic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all
> >> know at
> >>>>>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup,
> DataContainerView,
> >> and
> >>>>>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the
> changes
> >>>>>> added by this merge.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.- for App.css just this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .StringItemRenderer {
> >>>>>> cursor: pointer;
> >>>>>> padding-bottom: 4px;
> >>>>>> flex-grow: 1;
> >>>>>> flex-shrink: 0;
> >>>>>> padding-top: 4px;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .Group {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .Group {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .HGroup {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .VGroup {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .Container {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .Image {
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2.- Regarding App.js
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> is very similar, we have around
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * and this 2 pieces of code
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> >>>>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> >>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> >>>>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
> >>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> >>>>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> >>>>>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> >>>>>> this["iBeadModel"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> >>>>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> >>>>>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> >>>>>> this["iViewportModel"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> >>>>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> >>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> >>>>>> 0,
> >>>>>> 1,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
> >>>>>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
> >>>>>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
> >>>>>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
> >>>>>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
> >>>>>> this["iBeadController"] =
> >>>>>>
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
> >>>>>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
> >>>>>> 0,
> >>>>>> 1,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
You already have a Jewel DataContainer. I’m not sure it’s actually used anywhere, and maybe that’s the right way to go. I’m still finding my way around. I’m working on catching up to you and exploring as I go. ;-)
I’m looking at this as a learning exercise. I’m trying to figure out what we *can* and *can’t* do. Once I’m clearer on what the options are, we can discuss what’s the *right* way to handle it.
Makes sense?
Harbs
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Ok Harbs,
> but it'd be ok to create a Jewel DataContainer...in fact It would be the
> right thing to do, but I can create some time later if you want
> thanks
>
> El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 12:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> (To be clear, we can solve this problem by not using
>> org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer as a base class, but I’d like to
>> address the core problem if possible.)
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just committed a change where I declare different css in Jewel
>> DataGroup. This makes the declaration in (html) DataContainer never used
>> anywhere. Why is it still bringing in classes?
>>>
>>> Here’s what we get in JewelExample:
>>>
>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
>>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
>>> this["iBeadModel"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
>>> this["iViewportModel"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>>>
>>>
>>> "org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.list.DataGroup",
>>> function() {this["iItemRenderer"] =
>> org.apache.royale.jewel.itemRenderers.StringItemRenderer;
>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.Viewport;
>>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
>> org.apache.royale.jewel.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout},
>>>
>>> Alex, do you have any thoughts here?
>>>
>>> Harbs
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
>>>>
>>>> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is very good news! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to
>> the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it
>> matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
>>>>>
>>>>> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel
>> DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those
>> changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the
>> Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can
>> figure that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with
>> Basic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all
>> know at
>>>>>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView,
>> and
>>>>>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
>>>>>> added by this merge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.- for App.css just this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .StringItemRenderer {
>>>>>> cursor: pointer;
>>>>>> padding-bottom: 4px;
>>>>>> flex-grow: 1;
>>>>>> flex-shrink: 0;
>>>>>> padding-top: 4px;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .Group {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .Group {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .HGroup {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .VGroup {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .Container {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .Image {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.- Regarding App.js
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is very similar, we have around
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * and this 2 pieces of code
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
>>>>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
>>>>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
>>>>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
>>>>>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
>>>>>> this["iBeadModel"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
>>>>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
>>>>>> this["iViewportModel"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
>>>>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>>>>>> 0,
>>>>>> 1,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
>>>>>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
>>>>>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
>>>>>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
>>>>>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
>>>>>> this["iBeadController"] =
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
>>>>>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
>>>>>> 0,
>>>>>> 1,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Ok Harbs,
but it'd be ok to create a Jewel DataContainer...in fact It would be the
right thing to do, but I can create some time later if you want
thanks
El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 12:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> (To be clear, we can solve this problem by not using
> org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer as a base class, but I’d like to
> address the core problem if possible.)
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just committed a change where I declare different css in Jewel
> DataGroup. This makes the declaration in (html) DataContainer never used
> anywhere. Why is it still bringing in classes?
> >
> > Here’s what we get in JewelExample:
> >
> > "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> > function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> > this["iItemRenderer"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> > this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> > this["iBeadLayout"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> > this["iBeadModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> > this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> > this["iViewportModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> > this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> >
> >
> > "org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.list.DataGroup",
> > function() {this["iItemRenderer"] =
> org.apache.royale.jewel.itemRenderers.StringItemRenderer;
> > this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.Viewport;
> > this["iBeadLayout"] =
> org.apache.royale.jewel.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout},
> >
> > Alex, do you have any thoughts here?
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
> >>
> >> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
> >>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Carlos,
> >>>
> >>> This is very good news! :-)
> >>>
> >>> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to
> the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it
> matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
> >>>
> >>> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel
> DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those
> changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the
> Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
> >>>
> >>> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can
> figure that out.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Harbs
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with
> Basic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all
> know at
> >>>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView,
> and
> >>>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
> >>>> added by this merge.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.- for App.css just this:
> >>>>
> >>>> .DataItemRenderer {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> .StringItemRenderer {
> >>>> cursor: pointer;
> >>>> padding-bottom: 4px;
> >>>> flex-grow: 1;
> >>>> flex-shrink: 0;
> >>>> padding-top: 4px;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
> >>>>
> >>>> .DataItemRenderer {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .Group {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> ....
> >>>>
> >>>> .Group {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .HGroup {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .VGroup {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .Container {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .Image {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.- Regarding App.js
> >>>>
> >>>> is very similar, we have around
> >>>>
> >>>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
> >>>>
> >>>> * and this 2 pieces of code
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> >>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> >>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> >>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
> >>>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> >>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> >>>> this["iBeadLayout"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> >>>> this["iBeadModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> >>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> >>>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> >>>> this["iViewportModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> >>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> >>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> >>>> 0,
> >>>> 1,
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
> >>>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
> >>>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
> >>>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
> >>>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
> >>>> this["iBeadController"] =
> >>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
> >>>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
> >>>> 0,
> >>>> 1,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
(To be clear, we can solve this problem by not using org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer as a base class, but I’d like to address the core problem if possible.)
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just committed a change where I declare different css in Jewel DataGroup. This makes the declaration in (html) DataContainer never used anywhere. Why is it still bringing in classes?
>
> Here’s what we get in JewelExample:
>
> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> function() {this["iBeadView"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> this["iItemRenderer"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] = org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>
>
> "org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.list.DataGroup",
> function() {this["iItemRenderer"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.itemRenderers.StringItemRenderer;
> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.Viewport;
> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout},
>
> Alex, do you have any thoughts here?
>
> Harbs
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
>>
>> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>
>>> This is very good news! :-)
>>>
>>> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
>>>
>>> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
>>>
>>> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can figure that out.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harbs
>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with Basic.
>>>>
>>>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know at
>>>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView, and
>>>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
>>>> added by this merge.
>>>>
>>>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.- for App.css just this:
>>>>
>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> .StringItemRenderer {
>>>> cursor: pointer;
>>>> padding-bottom: 4px;
>>>> flex-grow: 1;
>>>> flex-shrink: 0;
>>>> padding-top: 4px;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
>>>>
>>>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
>>>>
>>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .Group {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> .Group {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .HGroup {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .VGroup {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .Container {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .Image {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.- Regarding App.js
>>>>
>>>> is very similar, we have around
>>>>
>>>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
>>>>
>>>> * and this 2 pieces of code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
>>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
>>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
>>>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
>>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
>>>> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
>>>> this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
>>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
>>>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
>>>> this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
>>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>>>> 0,
>>>> 1,
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
>>>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
>>>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
>>>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
>>>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
>>>> this["iBeadController"] =
>>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
>>>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
>>>> 0,
>>>> 1,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>
>
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
I just committed a change where I declare different css in Jewel DataGroup. This makes the declaration in (html) DataContainer never used anywhere. Why is it still bringing in classes?
Here’s what we get in JewelExample:
"org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
function() {this["iBeadView"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
this["iItemRenderer"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] = org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
"org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.list.DataGroup",
function() {this["iItemRenderer"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.itemRenderers.StringItemRenderer;
this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.supportClasses.Viewport;
this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.jewel.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout},
Alex, do you have any thoughts here?
Harbs
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
>
> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
>
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> This is very good news! :-)
>>
>> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
>>
>> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
>>
>> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can figure that out.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with Basic.
>>>
>>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know at
>>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView, and
>>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
>>> added by this merge.
>>>
>>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
>>>
>>> 1.- for App.css just this:
>>>
>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>> }
>>>
>>> .StringItemRenderer {
>>> cursor: pointer;
>>> padding-bottom: 4px;
>>> flex-grow: 1;
>>> flex-shrink: 0;
>>> padding-top: 4px;
>>> }
>>>
>>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
>>>
>>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
>>>
>>> .DataItemRenderer {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> .Group {
>>> }
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> .Group {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> .HGroup {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> .VGroup {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> .Container {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> .Image {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.- Regarding App.js
>>>
>>> is very similar, we have around
>>>
>>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
>>>
>>> * and this 2 pieces of code
>>>
>>>
>>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
>>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
>>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
>>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
>>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
>>> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
>>> this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
>>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
>>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
>>> this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
>>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>>> 0,
>>> 1,
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
>>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
>>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
>>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
>>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
>>> this["iBeadController"] =
>>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
>>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
>>> 0,
>>> 1,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Ok Harbs,
I revised the code, and is strange since in Jewel there's a
StringItemRenderer
that override typeNames, so don't understand why is coming that code
thanks
El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 11:38, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
>
> I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
>
> > On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > This is very good news! :-)
> >
> > I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to the
> compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it
> matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
> >
> > The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel DataGroup
> now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those changes.
> We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the Jewel CSS
> for the Jewel DataGroup.
> >
> > I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can
> figure that out.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Harbs
> >
> >> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with
> Basic.
> >>
> >> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know
> at
> >> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView,
> and
> >> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
> >> added by this merge.
> >>
> >> Other things that I think are not related to are:
> >>
> >> 1.- for App.css just this:
> >>
> >> .DataItemRenderer {
> >> }
> >>
> >> .StringItemRenderer {
> >> cursor: pointer;
> >> padding-bottom: 4px;
> >> flex-grow: 1;
> >> flex-shrink: 0;
> >> padding-top: 4px;
> >> }
> >>
> >> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
> >>
> >> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
> >>
> >> .DataItemRenderer {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> .Group {
> >> }
> >>
> >> ....
> >>
> >> .Group {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> .HGroup {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> .VGroup {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> .Container {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> .Image {
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
> >>
> >>
> >> 2.- Regarding App.js
> >>
> >> is very similar, we have around
> >>
> >> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
> >>
> >> * and this 2 pieces of code
> >>
> >>
> >> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> >> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> >> this["iItemRenderer"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> >> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> >> this["iBeadLayout"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> >> this["iBeadModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> >> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> >> this["iViewportModel"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> >> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> >> 0,
> >> 1,
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
> >> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
> >> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
> >> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
> >> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
> >> this["iBeadController"] =
> >> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
> >> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
> >> 0,
> >> 1,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
StringItemRender is brought in by DataContainer
I’m trying something to see if it fixes it.
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> This is very good news! :-)
>
> I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
>
> The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
>
> I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can figure that out.
>
> Thanks,
> Harbs
>
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with Basic.
>>
>> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know at
>> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView, and
>> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
>> added by this merge.
>>
>> Other things that I think are not related to are:
>>
>> 1.- for App.css just this:
>>
>> .DataItemRenderer {
>> }
>>
>> .StringItemRenderer {
>> cursor: pointer;
>> padding-bottom: 4px;
>> flex-grow: 1;
>> flex-shrink: 0;
>> padding-top: 4px;
>> }
>>
>> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
>>
>> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
>>
>> .DataItemRenderer {
>> }
>>
>>
>> .Group {
>> }
>>
>> ....
>>
>> .Group {
>> }
>>
>>
>> .HGroup {
>> }
>>
>>
>> .VGroup {
>> }
>>
>>
>> .Container {
>> }
>>
>>
>> .Image {
>> }
>>
>>
>> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
>>
>>
>> 2.- Regarding App.js
>>
>> is very similar, we have around
>>
>> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
>>
>> * and this 2 pieces of code
>>
>>
>> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
>> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
>> this["iItemRenderer"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
>> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
>> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
>> this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
>> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
>> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
>> this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
>> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
>> 0,
>> 1,
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
>> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
>> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
>> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
>> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
>> this["iBeadController"] =
>> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
>> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
>> 0,
>> 1,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: About differences between versions with/without Basic
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carlos,
This is very good news! :-)
I also noticed the empty selectors and I just committed a change to the compiler to remove empty selectors on minification. I don’t think it matters enough to remove them when the css is output for debug. Agree?
The classes brought in by DataContainerView are because Jewel DataGroup now subclasses DataContainerView to resolve the issues with those changes. We can probably fix this by declaring different interfaces in the Jewel CSS for the Jewel DataGroup.
I don’t know what’s bringing in StringItemRenderer. I’ll see if I can figure that out.
Thanks,
Harbs
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jewel sample has at this time many few differences when linked with Basic.
>
> Diff merge tool is reporting mostly differences in classes we all know at
> this time: things related to changes in DataGroup, DataContainerView, and
> more... so I don't have that into account since is part of the changes
> added by this merge.
>
> Other things that I think are not related to are:
>
> 1.- for App.css just this:
>
> .DataItemRenderer {
> }
>
> .StringItemRenderer {
> cursor: pointer;
> padding-bottom: 4px;
> flex-grow: 1;
> flex-shrink: 0;
> padding-top: 4px;
> }
>
> So good that fixes where removing most of this problems.
>
> Far beyond that I'm finding empty selectors that should be removed:
>
> .DataItemRenderer {
> }
>
>
> .Group {
> }
>
> ....
>
> .Group {
> }
>
>
> .HGroup {
> }
>
>
> .VGroup {
> }
>
>
> .Container {
> }
>
>
> .Image {
> }
>
>
> Notice that some are even duplicated like "Group"
>
>
> 2.- Regarding App.js
>
> is very similar, we have around
>
> *8-10 lines more of imports doesn't needed
>
> * and this 2 pieces of code
>
>
> "org.apache.royale.html.DataContainer",
> function() {this["iBeadView"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataContainerView;
> this["iItemRenderer"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer;
> this["iViewport"] = org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.Viewport;
> this["iBeadLayout"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.layouts.VerticalLayout;
> this["iBeadModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.DataProviderModel;
> this["iItemRendererClassFactory"] =
> org.apache.royale.core.ItemRendererClassFactory;
> this["iViewportModel"] = org.apache.royale.html.beads.models.ViewportModel;
> this["iDataProviderItemRendererMapper"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData},
> 0,
> 1,
>
> ...
>
>
> "org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.StringItemRenderer",
> function() {this["cursor"] = "pointer";
> this["paddingBottom"] = 4.0;
> this["flexGrow"] = 1.0;
> this["flexShrink"] = 0.0;
> this["iBeadController"] =
> org.apache.royale.html.beads.controllers.ItemRendererMouseController;
> this["paddingTop"] = 4.0},
> 0,
> 1,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira