royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Container change
Date Wed, 09 May 2018 16:58:30 GMT
We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing
for several days already.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Piotr,
>
> 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>
> > Carlos,
> >
> > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from
> Basic.
> > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes.
> It
> > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful
> Bead
> > and you need it you will copy it.
> >
>
> just explain a bit more in my response to Yishay email few seconds ago,
> you'll see is not only about size
> Thre's much more involved.
>
>
> >
> > After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed.
> >
> > It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those
> > changes if they were the cause.
> >
>
> I'm watching closely that builds doesn't break. Seems right now the build
> is broke, but just the previous one was successful and there's not code
> changes between, so I suppose is something not related to the code. I
> always pass maven to all framework and examples when something that implies
> moving classes or changing names or packages are in place, ensuring that
> all compiles without problems.
>
>
> > In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should be
> > voted or waited till review on separate branch.
> >
>
> That's completely right. 1.0 means a before and after. We are working hard
> to make all things assemble nicely and work flawlessly. And as we think we
> get that point, for me will be the right moment to make a 1.0 release. And
> that means that any change should be more difficult to do, and will need
> more consensus. Anyway, in that case, that would means for all of us the
> same that is happen now. Changes use to imply that applications should
> update to work accordingly to those ones. But in our case the changes are
> very easy to do. Think in Java, and how difficult is change from Java 5
> -6-7-8... or Spring Framework... it's very very difficult compared to a few
> changes here. But our code is still beta quality, and we can expect to stay
> without change a single line of code, and expect our user base grows.
> That's utopic from all  points of view.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw <yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to
> extend
> > > Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently,
> but
> > > because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> > > previously worked.
> > >
> > > Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing
> > > that
> > > there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and
> > ask
> > > questions. I think this should be encouraged.
> > >
> > > Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your
> motivation
> > > here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages
> depend
> > on
> > > which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> > > difference?
> > >
> > > Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker.
> > >
> > > Yishay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message