flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: AW: [FlexJS]Image
Date Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:52:39 GMT
Sorry about that. The changes seemed so utterly minor. I'll be sure to run
a more complete build in the future.
―peter

On 9/13/16, 5:01 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Ok,
>
>
>I think I found the problem. By removing the reference to ImageView and
>ImageModel, the compiler now no-longer adds the JS for both to the JS
>output. This is then missing later down the stream. I added both to the
>basic-manifest which made them part of the lib again. Now the Cordova
>example is building nicely again.
>
>
>I'm currently running the full build suite including examples ... as soon
>as that passes, I'll commit my changes.
>
>
>Chris
>
>________________________________
>Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 10:19:38
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: AW: [FlexJS]Image
>
>I think those last changes broke the framework build:
>
>https://builds.apache.org/view/E-G/view/Flex/job/FlexJS%20Framework%20(mav
>en)/255/console
>
>
>Chris
>
>________________________________
>Von: Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
>Gesendet: Montag, 12. September 2016 20:11:18
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: [FlexJS]Image
>
>Thanks.
>
>I’ll clean up BinaryImage as well when I have the opportunity.
>
>On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Peter Ent <pent@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> I updated the defaults.css in the HTML project to include the Image's
>> model and view for SWF and JS and removed this code fragment.
>> ―peter
>>
>> On 9/12/16, 10:01 AM, "Peter Ent" <pent@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I had to go back and look into it all again. This code is necessary.
>>>The
>>> source property is actually stored in the image's model. When this
>>> property changes, the ImageView bead picks it up and sets it into the
>>> <img> element, so the ImageView bead is also necessary; the Image needs
>>> the view in order to detect and handle changes in the model.
>>>
>>> However, I think the real change should go into the defaults.css file.
>>> Right now, the Image's model and view beads are set only for the Flash
>>> side, which is why the JS side is explicitly creating them. If the
>>> defaults.css were changed to be universal, then the code you see for
>>>the
>>> JS side would not be needed.
>>>
>>> ―peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/12/16, 9:31 AM, "Peter Ent" <pent@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll have to see what happens when these lines are removed. The Flash
>>>> side
>>>> nearly always has model and view beads to build the components but
>>>>the JS
>>>> side may not have a view bead since the element (i.e., <img>) is the
>>>> view.
>>>> Meaning, the Flash and JS versions aren't always symmetric. I'm not
>>>> really
>>>> sure why the JS side would need a view. It may be that I was
>>>> experimenting
>>>> with making both sides always follow the same pattern and just
>>>>checked in
>>>> that code accidentally.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Ent
>>>> Adobe Systems/Apache Flex Project
>>>>
>>>> On 9/12/16, 4:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Image component has the following code which did not make a lot
>>>>>of
>>>>> sense to me considering it¹s JS-only:
>>>>>
>>>>>           model = new
>>>>>               ImageModel();
>>>>>
>>>>>           addBead(new
>>>>>               ImageView());
>>>>>
>>>>> When trying to figure this out, we realized that this should be
>>>>> instantiated in UIBase in a more generic fashion. Are we correct in
>>>>> assuming that this is legacy code and should be removed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message