royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Type Selector Approximation (was Re: [DISCUSS] Explanation of the changes)
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:20:07 GMT
IMO, the thing that will have the greatest impact on whether Adobe will continue to pay me
to work full time on Royale is how many active users we have at the end of the year, not whether
we have a really cool way of avoiding type selector name collisions.  So I am asking folks
to consider that we may be better off just getting things to work for more users instead of
taking longer to make them perfect for one.  And that's why emulation components are my highest
priority.

My 2 more cents,
-Alex

On 6/6/18, 9:37 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

    I think as well this is important. Very important. We must notice that we
    are a multidisciplinar team and we must take advantage of that making each
    one work in the areas where they get the most of it. I think if Harbs wants
    to make this happen, I think he should do that. For needs, I think MX
    emulation is important, but not more or less than get this solve as well.
    Think that, for example, in my case or in Harbs case, probably will not use
    MX emulation at all, while others will use it. In the other part, we'll
    make heavy use of that feature.
    
    I already said this, I thought as well on "typeNames" problem of hardcode
    in a class, as when I see in a class hardcoded styles...I see many problems
    in those kind of things, so taking the time and energy to solve it, I think
    is a time well invested.
    
    My 2...
    
    Thanks
    
    
    
    2018-06-06 18:26 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
    
    > > This just seems like too much work for the hopefully seldom case of
    > mixing TLC's from various component sets.
    >
    > Well, I am already doing that… Maybe I’m the exception, but it’s not a
    > theoretical need. ;-)
    >
    > It also would enable us to use Basic and Express TLCs in Jewel — without
    > subclassing at all.
    >
    > There’s a bigger picture aspect of this as well which is probably most
    > important. It would enable component sets to declare how their typenames
    > should be written in CSS. Right now, Carlos is forced to write his Jewel
    > CSS using class selectors. I would really like to be able to change that to
    > type selectors and declaring the selectors in the manifest would enable
    > that.
    >
    > This might be something I could work on, but I’d likely need direction.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Harbs
    >
    > > On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
    > >
    > > This just seems like too much work for the hopefully seldom case of
    > mixing TLC's from various component sets.  Remember that in "Terminology
    > and Concepts", the TLC's are just collections of beads.  There should be
    > little dependencies of the beads on the host strand.  Folks should be able
    > to break any TLC into its "exploded component".
    > >
    > > There should be so little code in a TLC, that there really shouldn't be
    > much advantage to having a TLC in one component set subclass a TLC in
    > another component.  The big re-use of code should come from subclassing and
    > aggregating beads and reusing utility functions.
    > >
    > > Any manually controlled naming scheme just sets up another place for
    > mistakes and collisions.  I think there are many more important things for
    > us to work on, like getting the emulation components to run.
    > >
    > > My 2 cents,
    > > -Alex
    > >
    > > On 6/6/18, 12:28 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >    While I was trying to figure out how the compiler handles CSS, a new
    > idea came to me which I think is better than any of the ideas we had until
    > now (if I might say so myself). ;-p
    > >
    > >    Basically, we can just use the component manifest file.
    > >
    > >    One of the issues I was struggling with is that if the type selector
    > is defined and hard-coded in the component class, that very much limits how
    > other component sets can use the component. I think this is part of what
    > was bothering Carlos as well.
    > >
    > >    By adding a new attribute to components, I think we can solve this
    > problem very nicely. For example in express-manifest:
    > >    <component id="Button" class="org.apache.royale.html.Button"
    > lookupOnly="true" typeNames=".express.Button”/>
    > >
    > >    Would define that any express|Button (used in an express namespace)
    > should be written with a selector of “.express.Button”. That is even if the
    > class is the same as one used by a different component set.
    > >
    > >    Of course, of that to work, the correct typeNames need to be assigned
    > to the classes. I think that could be defined in the CSS:
    > >
    > >    Button{
    > >       TypeNames: “.express.Button”;
    > >    }
    > >
    > >    Of course, this would require using ValuesManager to look up the
    > classNames for the component (i.e. this.typeNames =
    > ValuesManager.valuesImpl.getValue(this, "typeNames") as String), so it’s
    > not completely PAYG.
    > >
    > >    I would suggest for this one of a few of courses of action:
    > >
    > >    1. We could create a protected setTypeNames method in UIBase which
    > would be virtual and overridden by subclasses to either write the typeNames
    > directly or use the ValuesManager.
    > >    2. We could create a protected setTypeNames method in UIBase which
    > uses the ValuesManager by default and the subclasses would only override
    > the method if they want to set it directly.
    > >    3. We do nothing in UIBase, and each component decides whether to
    > implement a protected setTypeNames method (or similar) which could work in
    > one of the two aforementioned ways.
    > >
    > >    #3 is the most PAYG.
    > >    #2 is the least PAYG, but the most DRY. According to Royale
    > principles, it would generally not be the way we’d go, but I would prefer
    > it because it gives the most predictable behavior in terms of declarable
    > CSS. TypeNames is also pretty “Core” to Royale component sets, so it’s
    > somewhat appropriate. It also allows users to remove default CSS selectors
    > from specific components should they choose to do so.
    > >
    > >    Thoughts?
    > >    Harbs
    > >
    > >> On Jun 1, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> OK, then I think we are on roughly the same page.  Earlier I proposed a
    > map of package names to short names.  However, I just realized that it
    > needs to be a map of MXML namespaces to short names, and metadata won't
    > work because I think the rules get chosen by MXML namespace instead of
    > package names because you can map the same class into different MXML
    > namespaces.  If you want to map "library://ns.apache.org/jewel <library://
    > ns.apache.org/jewel>" to ".jewel." it would have the desired result.
    > >>
    > >> My 2 cents,
    > >> -Alex
    > >>
    > >> On 5/30/18, 11:58 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>   I’m not talking about solving subclassing here.
    > >>
    > >>   I’m talking about one thing: How to determine what classnames the
    > compiler writes to HTML CSS files for specific types.
    > >>
    > >>   Carlos and I would both like for the compiler to compile:
    > >>   j|Button{
    > >>      background-color: #fff;
    > >>   }
    > >>
    > >>   To:
    > >>   .jewel.Button{
    > >>      background-color: #fff;
    > >>   }
    > >>
    > >>   Rather than:
    > >>   org_apache_royale_jewel_Button{
    > >>      background-color: #fff;
    > >>   }
    > >>
    > >>   And we all agree that we don’t want:
    > >>   .Button{
    > >>      background-color: #fff;
    > >>   }
    > >>
    > >>   The question is how to accomplish that. We’re suggesting to include
    > some kind of meta tag or comment in the Button class source which acts as a
    > compiler directive to specify exactly what to output. If you have another
    > suggestion on how we can achieve that goal, that’s fine too.
    > >>
    > >>   Makes sense?
    > >>   Harbs
    > >>
    > >>> On May 31, 2018, at 12:30 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
    > wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> There has always been an option to keep/strip metadata in the output.
    > It is -compiler.keep-as3-metadata.
    > >>>
    > >>> I don't think I understand what you are proposing with metadata.  I
    > thought I'd shown that there was no easy way to solve what the runtime
    > (ValuesManager) should do. I thought we'd agreed upthread that metadata was
    > not required, and we would decide on some short-name abbreviations based on
    > the fully qualified names (package and class name).   The abbreviation
    > scheme doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it reduces likelihood of
    > collision at very low cost.  An example might be that you can register
    > abbreviation mappings so we say that "oarh" is short for
    > "org.apache.royale.html".
    > >>>
    > >>> Thoughts?
    > >>> -Alex
    > >>>
    > >>> On 5/29/18, 5:47 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com> <mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com>>> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>  Sorry for the delay in response here. I was not feeling very well
    > last week… (I forgot how much work an infant is…) ;-)
    > >>>
    > >>>  I think it’s time to wrap this up.
    > >>>
    > >>>  I don’t think there’s any completely PAYG solution to this problem.
I
    > think conflicts need to be prevented by default.
    > >>>
    > >>>  I like the metadata and .basic.Button approach and I think it’s more
    > PAYG than org_apache_royale_html_Button. Theoretically, component sets can
    > just use “Button” and ignore conflicts for complete PAYG (although I would
    > not recommend that).
    > >>>
    > >>>  We should definitely use metadata that does not insure a runtime tax.
    > If we could somehow strip out the bracket metadata, I prefer that. Using
    > metadata would allow different component sets to make their own decisions.
    > >>>
    > >>>  Thanks,
    > >>>  Harbs
    > >>>
    > >>>> On May 21, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
    > <mailto:aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I think we are in agreement.  My most recent posts were intended
to
    > show that #2 is not easily solvable, if at all, and thus we should not
    > invest time or energy there.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> My only suggestions regarding #1 is that we do not invent a second
    > naming system, and that whatever we do is PAYG in the sense that I don’t
    > expect users to mix component sets as much as borrow beads from other
    > component sets.  Folks who have the goal of building the smallest possible
    > app with only one component set should not pay for the possibility of
    > mixing in other component sets.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> My 2 cents,
    > >>>> -Alex
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 5/21/18, 7:00 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com> <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com>> <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com> <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com>>> on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com> <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com>><mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com> <mailto:
    > carlos.rovira@gmail.com <mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com>>> on behalf
of
    > carlosrovira@apache.org <mailto:carlosrovira@apache.org> <mailto:
    > carlosrovira@apache.org <mailto:carlosrovira@apache.org>> <mailto:
    > carlosrovira@apache.org <mailto:carlosrovira@apache.org> <mailto:
    > carlosrovira@apache.org <mailto:carlosrovira@apache.org>>>> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I think Harbs is right here.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> We should take into account that as we focus on presentation (CSS,
    > styles,
    > >>>> drawings, colors, fonts) things are showing that before passed
    > unnoticed.
    > >>>> And now we have the chance to address all of this to make
    > architecture and
    > >>>> presentation get to its best. Both things are equally important
here,
    > >>>> Royale finaly has to be very careful with visual things since we
are
    > an
    > >>>> interface framework, so if we get styling things works as flexible
as
    > >>>> possible, we can expect designers to work with royale.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Thanks
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2018-05-21 11:35 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com> <mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com>>>:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> I’m getting confused.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Let me try and summarize the issues as I understand them:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> There are two different types of issues: Compile time issues,
and
    > runtime
    > >>>>> issues.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Compile time issues are:
    > >>>>> 1. Compiled css files do not differentiate between different
    > packages.
    > >>>>> (i.e. ImageButton type selectors will always compile to and
    > .ImageButton
    > >>>>> class selector, no matter what the package name is.
    > >>>>> 2. There’s no way to prevent superclass dependencies from
being
    > included
    > >>>>> in output when they are specified in Type selectors in Royale
CSS
    > files.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Runtime issues:
    > >>>>> 1. Because of the issue in #1 above, there can be css styling
    > conflicts
    > >>>>> across component sets.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> I’m pretty sure that ValuesManager is currently working fine.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> From my perspective, the only issue which *needs* to be solved
is
    > compiler
    > >>>>> issue #1. That seems like a relatively simple issue to solve.
    > Solving that
    > >>>>> does not require any runtime metadata. All we need is for the
    > “typenames”
    > >>>>> variable in a class to match whatever class name selector the
    > compiler
    > >>>>> outputs in the CSS file. It does *not* need to be the same qualified
    > class
    > >>>>> name that the ValuesManager uses at runtime. The classname that’s
    > actually
    > >>>>> assigned to the HTML element needs to match the CSS class selector
    > in the
    > >>>>> CSS file and it needs to be unique across packages.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Resolving this will fix all the runtime issue that I know of.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Resolving compiler issue #2 is a nice “plus” if we can do
it. It
    > would
    > >>>>> allow subclassing components without necessarily bringing in
all the
    > >>>>> superclass CSS dependencies. I *think* your main points have
to do
    > with
    > >>>>> issue #2.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Are we on the same page here, or am I missing something?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Harbs
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>> On May 19, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
    > <mailto:aharui@adobe.com.INVALID> <mailto:aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
    > <mailto:aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>>>
    > >>>>> wrote:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> On 5/18/18, 2:50 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com> <mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com <mailto:
    > harbs.lists@gmail.com>>> wrote:
    > >>>>>> And basic.css has:
    > >>>>>> RadioButton
    > >>>>>> {
    > >>>>>>   font-size: 12px;
    > >>>>>>   font-family: sans-serif;
    > >>>>>> }
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> RadioButton is a Royale Type Selector as it should be. No
discussion
    > >>>>> on that front (with the exception that the styling should be
removed
    > from
    > >>>>> the defaults.css).
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Te whole question is what happens in MyApp.css which is
compiled
    > >>>>> standard HTML CSS.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Currently we get:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> .RadioButton {
    > >>>>>>        font-family: sans-serif;
    > >>>>>>        font-size: 12px;
    > >>>>>> }
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> This CSS comes from the Type Selector in basic.css. This
seems to be
    > >>>>> included in the app.css even if RadioButton is not included.
But
    > putting
    > >>>>> that point aside at the moment, the question is what the class
    > selector (in
    > >>>>> app.css) should be *produced* from the type selector.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> It is not obvious why RadioButton is in the app.css.  This
might be
    > a
    > >>>>> new bug from the theme handling I did recently.  I will investigate
    > more.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I think we agree that “.RadioButton" is not right because
there can
    > >>>>> be RadioButton from more than one component set.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> One option is to fully qualify the *compiled* class selector
so it’s
    > >>>>> named “.org_apache_royale_html_RadioButton”. I’m pretty
sure this
    > is what
    > >>>>> you are proposing. The primary objection to that is that it’s
a
    > rather long
    > >>>>> string and kind of “ugly”.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> You can choose other string transformations, but the key
point is
    > that
    > >>>>> they should be derived from the unique QName.  Any other scheme
just
    > means
    > >>>>> that the developer has to solve the unique name problem twice
which
    > >>>>> increases the chance of collision.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Another option is “.basic.Button”. The advantage of
this approach is
    > >>>>> mostly aesthetics. It also has the advantage of being theoretically
    > more
    > >>>>> flexible because CSS can be applied to “basic" and “Button”
    > separately. Of
    > >>>>> course that goes both ways and if there’s css applied to “.Button”
by
    > >>>>> mistake, it can effect the “basic” Button where it’s not
supposed to.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I'm not clear how the compiler or the ValuesManager (at
runtime) can
    > >>>>> efficiently associate .basic.Button with org.apache.royale.basic.
    > Button.
    > >>>>> Metadata lookups can be expensive.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> If one problem is with Type Selectors in Royale inheriting
styles
    > from
    > >>>>> Base Classes, we should discuss ways to manage that.  Metadata
is
    > possible,
    > >>>>> but metadata is expensive at runtime.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Good point about extra code from meta tags. Maybe the compiler
could
    > >>>>> strip these out?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> My point is that ValuesManager will need this information
at
    > runtime.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> My suggestion with meta-data was a way to enable the second
option.
    > >>>>> It does not need to be specifically meta-tags. It could be something
    > like
    > >>>>> this as well:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> /**
    > >>>>>> * royaleclassselector RadioButton
    > >>>>>> * royaleclassprefix basic
    > >>>>>> * royaleinheritsbaseselector
    > >>>>>> */
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> These ASDoc directives are definitely not available at runtime.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> There are two parts to how Type Selectors work.  The
main concern
    > >>>>> appears to be the ClassReferences kind of CSS, which is not
handled
    > by the
    > >>>>> Browser.  The IValuesImpl has to decide whether to look up the
base
    > class
    > >>>>> and it would have to fetch and parse metadata at runtime to
do
    > that.  And,
    > >>>>> as I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure the compiler can know whether
    > the base
    > >>>>> class is in the output because it was directly instantiated
or not.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I’m not sure how the IValuesImpl actually works, so I
have no
    > >>>>> thoughts on this front. I’m not clear on whether there is
currently
    > an
    > >>>>> issue with that. I’ve been discussing plain CSS which *is*
handled
    > by the
    > >>>>> browser.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> Historically, the only reason Type Selectors inherit
from Base
    > Classes
    > >>>>> in Flex is because of app developer subclassing.  For sure,
we the
    > >>>>> framework developers can always take the time to fill out the
Type
    > >>>>> Selectors such that the lookup never goes to the Base Class.
 But
    > the app
    > >>>>> devs just want to use a component as the top tag in an MXMLComponent
    > or do
    > >>>>> a cheap "MyButton extends Button" in AS.  And without inheritance,
    > you
    > >>>>> don't get any defaults and things blow up.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> We could say to the app devs::  "too bad, in Royale
you gotta copy
    > the
    > >>>>> base class type selector".   I would imagine non-Royale folks
have
    > to copy
    > >>>>> HTML Type Selectors in some cases already.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> We could try to find all subclasses of classes that
have Type
    > Selectors
    > >>>>> that don't have their own Type Selector and have the compiler
    > auto-copy
    > >>>>> that base class Type Selector (or add the subclass to the list
of
    > classes
    > >>>>> for that selector.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I think we *should* have inheritance (like we have today)
unless a
    > >>>>> subclass specifically disables it using metadata or what-have-you.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Let's try some example code:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> <Application>
    > >>>>>> <initialView>
    > >>>>>> <View>
    > >>>>>> <ComboBox>
    > >>>>>> <RadioButton />
    > >>>>>> </View>
    > >>>>>> </iniialView>
    > >>>>>> </Application>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Button will be linked in because ComboBox composites a Button.
 It
    > will
    > >>>>> also be linked in because RadioButton subclasses Button.  There
is
    > code in
    > >>>>> IValuesImpls that loop through the base classes to resolve Type
    > Selector
    > >>>>> inheritance.  Roughly:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Var baseClass:Class = thisObject.getBaseClass();
    > >>>>>> While (baseClass) {
    > >>>>>> Var qname = getQualifiedClassName(baseClass);
    > >>>>>> Var stylesObject:Object = styles[qname];
    > >>>>>> If (stylesObject != null && stylesObject[styleProp]
!== undefined)
    > >>>>>> Return stylesObject[styleProp]
    > >>>>>> baseClass = baseClass.getBaseClass();
    > >>>>>> }
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> When looking up styles for RadioButton, if you don't want
this code
    > to
    > >>>>> then go check for Button (which will rightly be in the app.css
    > because of
    > >>>>> ComboBox) you will need some metadata or other information at
    > runtime.  You
    > >>>>> can't rely on the Button styles not being there because the
compiler
    > saw
    > >>>>> the metadata on RadioButton and decided not to put the Button
styles
    > in the
    > >>>>> app.css.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> And also, I don't think there is a way to easily know what
caused a
    > >>>>> reference to Button in the first place.  Take out ComboBox and
    > replace it
    > >>>>> with:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> <fx:Script>
    > >>>>>> Var foo:Button;
    > >>>>>> </fx:Script>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Button never gets instantiated, but it was used and therefore
linked
    > >>>>> in.  I don't see how the compiler could know that Button was
never
    > directly
    > >>>>> instantiated and thus can be pruned from the app.css.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> That's why instead of coming up with fancy pruning schemes,
I
    > recommend
    > >>>>> that we try different ways of solving the problems caused if
Type
    > Selectors
    > >>>>> don't inherit styles from base classes ever.  Then the code
in the
    > >>>>> IValuesImpl wouldn't have a loop.  Then maybe the compiler should
    > detect
    > >>>>> that a simple subclass has no styles and add that subclass to
the
    > styles in
    > >>>>> the app.css
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> MyRadioButton, RadioButton {
    > >>>>>> ...
    > >>>>>> }
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Thoughts?
    > >>>>>> -Alex
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> --
    > >>>> Carlos Rovira
    > >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
    > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0>><https:/
    > /na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%
    > 2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=pgWZoLSQVVLsYl321NNQ3bmWyy8JuonZHMA%2BGVMIdeA%3D&reserved=0.
    > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
    > 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
    > 7Caee5e54c6ada489ec79c08d5bf2332fa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
    > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636625080285751377&sdata=LQlu181aXL1Md42%
    > 2BDlfUR8ajl6eTR7hcVTQsg9%2BXqMI%3D&reserved=0>>>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Carlos Rovira
    https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce5da0f759d424a1dfb2708d5cbcbd74a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638998707297264&sdata=5abyh7R96cTSEQwFAo2WjI3zq4NQ%2FPNPEDZ0Xz0y9zs%3D&reserved=0
    

Mime
View raw message