royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Revisiting the old debate: 'localId vs. id'
Date Sat, 03 Nov 2018 08:46:39 GMT
Hey Alex,
Re:
If you are asking if we should be smart about what code we generate for
"id" and only add the binding events if the "id" is used in a source
expression of a binding expression, then yes, we could do that optimization
as well.

Yes I am - but I don't 'get' why you think about localId in a different way
to regular id here. There could be a gap in my understanding. Maybe I am
not seeing the wood for the trees. For me, they are both *exactly* the
same, except one does not set the id on HtmlElement. So id can be used in
exactly the same way you described in your snippet for localId. In which
case it's also wasteful in exactly the same way, right? If yes, then
presumably the exact same optimization approach applies to both - because
in the local code (developer's as3, mxml), they are in fact no
different.... I think?


Regarding not using IDs in HTML, IMO, that's not our decision.  We provide
the developer choices to set it or not.  How should we do it?  Since you
and I seem to be thinking this can be controlled at a "whole file" level,
it may be better to get rid of localId and have a per-file directive to
dictate whether id gets output as "id" and sets the HTMLElement id or "_ld"
and doesn't.  Then we wouldn’t have a magic compile-time property that the
IDEs have to learn about.

Sure. I wasn't suggesting 'no option' for the developer, just that I don't
consider it (personally) a common need. Others likely may have a different
view because they do things differently or have encountered situations that
I have not.
In terms of implementation, yeah I was trying to think of examples within
mxml components where you would actually want to have some with localId and
not others, but nothing sprang to mind. If it's anything where the parent
mxml component is intended to be used with multiple instances, then you
very likely want it off for all ids, so thus far I also think file level
makes sense.

At some top level views of the application it may be convenient to have
individual tag instances being switchable, but I think I'd be happy to
forgo that for a simpler file level implementation.
If it does remain at instance tag level, then I do think that having a
boolean attribute switch alongside the regular id attribute to 'turn it on
or off' for DOM setting makes more sense than a separate localId string.
This doesn't break the usefulness of what IDEs already know about 'id'
although the other new compile-time attribute is 'not known' by the IDE
unless we can somehow fool the code inspectors.

So yes, I think the file level approach sounds pretty good on the face of
it. I just think this is also really important to get right, because it
won't be easy to change later, so would be keen to see others' thoughts too.

Personally I think my own default for most things will be 'off' because I
think it is rare to actually need the ids at the DOM level.

Regarding React:  There must be a way to give a component a name in their
markup so you can reference it from script.  What is their way of doing
that?

Actually most of React considers what we think of as the components more
conceptually as part of the 'rendering', not so much as 'instantiations' -
more like output that derives from properties passed down via the parent
chain, and from local state changes (which triggers 're-render'). Most
times it's avoidable to do more than follow that approach. But on the
occasions you need to get a reference from lower down in the 'rendering',
it uses something called 'refs' which are 'kind of' like localId. They are
a way for the 'rendered' component to to pass back a reference of
themselves to something in the parent chain that rendered them. React is
onto (I think) the 3rd implementation of how this can happen, gradually
improving things. It used to be passing down a string that was a field to
set on a special object (this.refs) in the parent, which is now officially
deprecated. Then callbacks were used (like the example link I posted
earlier). The current best practice passes an object that is defined on the
parent using React.createRef() which is populated with a current value by
the child. But again, it is relatively rare to use these. You can see an
example in that link I posted earlier an example of the component doing
something directly with the HtmlElement (input), using the callback ref
approach. (
https://www.javascriptstuff.com/use-refs-not-ids/#the-solution-refs )

In my experience it is rare to reference anything using markup ids, using
the old document.getElementById. For React, most libraries insulate you
from anything to do with that (possibly wrapping some vanilla js lib to
make it more React-like) and provide a set of 'props' that you use to
configure them. If you want to read some possibly biased, but perhaps
helpful, learning descriptions, you should google 'thinking in react' -
you can find a concrete example of some of the things I mentioned. Styling
also tends to be different and happen alongside component code, but I won't
go into details.

There's a lot about React/ReactNative that was strange and different to me
(and I'm still learning new things), but I think it forces a number of
patterns that avoid some of the pitfalls of working with js. Just in
different ways to what I was familiar with. I actually think learning it
has helped me think about Royale in different ways because it also forced
me to learn about related things like webpack and babel etc as well.
Enough about React.... hopefully I answered your question somewhere in that




On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:30 PM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> If you look at all of the code generated for "id", there is a bunch of
> code in there to support databinding.  And so, you are correct that if
> someone binds to something with a localId, then you should generate the
> same code as "id".
>
> But my point is that localId can be used for reasons other than
> databinding, in which case you don't need all of that code.  Many times, it
> can just be a plain var.  As in:
>
> <js:TextInput localId="myTi"  change="changedText()"/>
> <fx:Script>
>     private function changeText():void {
>         sendToServer(myTI.text);
>     }
> </fx:Script>
>
> For the snippet above, it is not necessary to handle localId the same as
> "id".
>
> If you are asking if we should be smart about what code we generate for
> "id" and only add the binding events if the "id" is used in a source
> expression of a binding expression, then yes, we could do that optimization
> as well.
>
> Regarding not using IDs in HTML, IMO, that's not our decision.  We provide
> the developer choices to set it or not.  How should we do it?  Since you
> and I seem to be thinking this can be controlled at a "whole file" level,
> it may be better to get rid of localId and have a per-file directive to
> dictate whether id gets output as "id" and sets the HTMLElement id or "_ld"
> and doesn't.  Then we wouldn’t have a magic compile-time property that the
> IDEs have to learn about.
>
> Regarding React:  There must be a way to give a component a name in their
> markup so you can reference it from script.  What is their way of doing
> that?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/2/18, 4:39 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.dove@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Alex,
>     For this:
>     I thought there were two problems:
>
>     A) a compiler warning about binding to something with a localID
>     B) it didn't work in the js-release version.
>
>     Issues/Expecations
>     --------------------------
>     I did not even look at (A) (or notice it if there is one), and yes
> there
>     was an issue with b - minimization of the getter/setter that otherwise
>     would normally prevent issues.
>     The binding issue I observed was that binding from outside the
> component
>     did not work with localId - but it did work when id was used.
>
>     So my 'fixes' were based on the assumption that the localId feature
> could
>     be specified as:
>     "Same functionality as 'id' but does not set the HtmlElement id"
>
>     In other words, I would expect swapping it out simply to change the
> DOM id
>     assignment aspect, and nothing else that already functions correctly
> with
>     'id'
>     Is this not the original intention?
>
>     I understand your point about the PAYG aspect and not having a bindable
>     getter/setter - but I did not change anything in that implementation, I
>     just re-used the original one for 'id' which already does that - so it
>     should behave exactly as if 'id' was used I think (I will check this,
> but I
>     don't think there is already an optimization for id?). I did this while
>     testing binding issues when swapping id to localId in code, compared
> across
>     flash and js, aiming for identical results.
>
>     Let me know if the assumption above ("Same functionality as 'id' but
> does
>     not set the HtmlElement id") is wrong, but if it is right, then I will
> try
>     to do what you suggested for *both* localId and id in terms of
> selective
>     getter/setter output based on source.binding optimizations. Not sure at
>     this point how easy this will be, but happy to give it a go
>     (timeframe:during November).
>
>     Alternatives
>     ---------------
>     In terms of my own use, I would prefer 'not setting' HtmlElement id far
>     more routinely than setting it, based on my experience with other work
> over
>     the last 18 months or so. But that's just me (and also my experience
> was
>     using React, not Royale).
>     I just looked at a complex React app in the browser and copied out the
> html
>     in the body tag, and seached for id="   in a few different view states.
>     Aside from the top level 'root' tag for the app itself, the rare usages
>     were exclusively with 3rd part libs, none of our own code was assigning
>     ids. I'm not suggesting this is always typical, because others might
> have
>     quite opposite views. But it is my experience.
>     (I also just googled 'should you use id in react apps' and something
> sort
>     of similar is expressed here[1]  - again just for comparison - the
> 'refs'
>     mentioned is the local reference to the element.)
>
>     In terms of potential changes to the mxml tag implementation itself -
> in
>     the end, I can definitely work with it how it is - although as
> mentioned
>     earlier, I also agree that it should be an error to have both id and
>     localId set with the current approach.
>     And I don't want to belabor the point if everyone decides this is
> already
>     locked in as-s.
>     But if there is a time to refine or review it, it does seem better to
> do it
>     sooner rather than later. For the IDE aspect, I personally think that
>     should factor more in to the decision about how this is implemented,
> but I
>     did not contribute to the original discussion so that's my fault!
>
>     I'm sorry my posts always end up so long. I will try to keep them
> shorter.
>     -Greg
>
>     1.
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.javascriptstuff.com%2Fuse-refs-not-ids%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353fe11057b840e63f4108d6411c6726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767987606791540&amp;sdata=xgiKOnQlaRvE7uRk1DH8SE7zHBi4ejeLfpHf8INohMM%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>     On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:03 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>     > Hi Greg,
>     >
>     > I thought there were two problems:
>     >
>     > A) a compiler warning about binding to something with a localID
>     > B) it didn't work in the js-release version.
>     >
>     > The SWF does not rename variables so I would expect it to work
> whether the
>     > localID is a var or bindable getter/setter due to the default
>     > timing/lifecycle.  And I believe it works in js-debug version.
>     >
>     > What converting from var to getter/setter does is add @export so that
>     > Google Closure won't rename the localId.  So that makes sense, but
>     > converting every localId var to a getter/setter is non-optimal
> because not
>     > all localIds are used in binding expressions, so it would be great
> if you
>     > could optimize it by checking to see if the localId was used as the
> source
>     > (not the destination) in a binding expression.  But all of this is
> code
>     > that will solve B, and it occurs to me that the compiler should
> still be
>     > outputting warnings in A, although we could defer work on that.
>     >
>     > -Alex
>     >
>     > On 11/2/18, 11:50 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.dove@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Alex, sorry if I wasn't clear.
>     >
>     >     What I meant was this:
>     >     1) The compiler has always had a notion of IDs and
> effectiveIDs.  IDs
>     >     reflect the "id" property in an MXML Instance.  You set id="foo"
> and
>     > the
>     >     compiler will create a getter/setter with bindable events named
> "foo"
>     > on
>     >     the output class.
>     >
>     >     I was just matching the above id that for localId in js with the
> belief
>     >     that they should work the same locally without any other changes
> (in
>     >     actionscript/mxml). My changes should only do that for the
> localId,
>     > not all
>     >     effectiveIds (if not that was not my intention and I will fix
> it).
>     >     I assumed this is what was happening in swf because I can see the
>     > bindings
>     >     working in my side-by-side comparison tests, but it could be
> because of
>     >     timing of binding initialization maybe. I will check this.
>     >     I had the impression that id and localId were supposed to be
>     > functionally
>     >     equivalent, with only the HtmlElement setting not happening in
> js.
>     > Maybe
>     >     the
>     >
>     >     I will think about how to optimize things.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:20 AM Alex Harui
> <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >     > Hi Greg,
>     >     >
>     >     > I’m not sure what you mean by "match the swf behavior".  I
> don't
>     > think the
>     >     > SWF output generated bindable getter/setters for every
> effectiveID,
>     > but it
>     >     > might already have the smarts to do that for any effectiveID it
>     > finds is
>     >     > used in a source expression for databinding.  In fact, I guess
> I'm
>     >     > surprised that the warning I thought was being generated went
> away
>     > if you
>     >     > only changed the JS output.  I thought that warning came from
> a check
>     >     > elsewhere in code that dictates both SWF and JS compile errors.
>     >     >
>     >     > Getters/setters have function call overhead compared to a
> plain var,
>     > so
>     >     > any time we can skip using them, we have faster smaller code.
> So
>     > Ideally,
>     >     > the compiler would only generate getter/setters for "id" when
> it
>     > absolutely
>     >     > has to.  So if you can, it would be best to try to make that
> change
>     > a bit
>     >     > smarter.  There is a BindingDataBase that might contain useful
>     > information.
>     >     >
>     >     > I agree that you can assume multiple instances for an MXML
> file in a
>     > SWC,
>     >     > but I'm not clear that everyone generates SWCs for their MXML
> files.
>     >     >
>     >     > Anyway, if we can agree that we could essentially treat "id"
> like we
>     > are
>     >     > currently treating "localId" for an entire file, then we don't
> need a
>     >     > "localId" compile-time property which would make Royale more
>     > compatible
>     >     > with existing IDEs.
>     >     >
>     >     > My 2 cents,
>     >     > -Alex
>     >     >
>     >     > On 11/2/18, 10:58 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.dove@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Hi Alex, Thanks for the comprehensive info!
>     >     >
>     >     >     Just a few selective comments:
>     >     >
>     >     >     'Greg's changes appear to generate bindable getter/setters
> for
>     > all
>     >     >     localIDs.  This will work for now, but IMO, isn't as PAYG
> as it
>     > could
>     >     > be.'
>     >     >
>     >     >     Sorry I was not clear in my understanding if this was
>     > intentionally
>     >     >     omitted. I thought that localId was the same as id, but
> just
>     > avoids the
>     >     >     HTMLElement id setting. So I expected switching id to
> localId to
>     >     > continue
>     >     >     to work the same but fix the browser console duplicate id
>     > alerts. That
>     >     > is
>     >     >     what I was addressing here. But I think my changes in js
> match
>     > the swf
>     >     >     behavior now?
>     >     >
>     >     >     I'm not proposing anything added to UIBase, just a
> different way
>     > to
>     >     >     implement the compile-time feature.
>     >     >
>     >     >     'One question I have is whether the developer of an MXML
>     > Component
>     >     > "knows"
>     >     >     that the component  is intended to have multiple instances
> or
>     > not.  If
>     >     > not,
>     >     >     the problem gets harder, as the generated output need to
> be told
>     >     > whether to
>     >     >     set the HTMLElement id or not.  If the developer "knows",
> we
>     > could find
>     >     >     some way to tell the compiler to generate all "Id" as what
> we are
>     >     > currently
>     >     >     generating for "localId".  '
>     >     >
>     >     >     If the MXML Component is part of a swc, it is safest to
> assume
>     > that it
>     >     > is
>     >     >     possible to have multiple instances I think. But not
> really known
>     >     > (although
>     >     >     some component types can be assumed to be likely).
>     >     >
>     >     >     'Thinking about it now, I can't think of why, in a single
> MXML
>     > file,
>     >     > you
>     >     >     would need to sometimes set "id" and other times set
> "localId".
>     >  I
>     >     > think
>     >     >     either you want all ids in a file to not set the
> HTMLElement ids
>     > or
>     >     > not. '
>     >     >
>     >     >     This seems true also, thinking about it - that's good
> insight.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:25 AM Alex Harui
>     > <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
>     >     > wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     > Greg's suggestion is valid.  And there could certainly
> be a
>     > better
>     >     >     > solution than "localID".  But maybe we need agreement on
> the
>     > problem
>     >     > space
>     >     >     > first.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > IMO, the problem of multiple IDs is rare.  Can we agree
> on
>     > that?  My
>     >     > guess
>     >     >     > is that 90% of .MXML files never have more than one
> instance
>     > of them
>     >     > on
>     >     >     > screen at a time.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > So, if we can agree on that, then we want to apply PAYG
> to the
>     >     > solution.
>     >     >     > We want folks to be able to create an MXML file for the
> 90%
>     > case,
>     >     > use IDs,
>     >     >     > use CSS and third-party libraries that call
> getElementById and
>     >     > things "just
>     >     >     > work".  Hopefully, we can agree that it is ok for more
> work to
>     > be
>     >     > required
>     >     >     > by the developer and more code to be generated and run
> to have
>     >     > multiple
>     >     >     > instances of an MXML file on screen.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Technically there are two sections of code that factor
> into
>     > this:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > 1) The compiler has always had a notion of IDs and
>     > effectiveIDs.  IDs
>     >     >     > reflect the "id" property in an MXML Instance.  You set
>     > id="foo" and
>     >     > the
>     >     >     > compiler will create a getter/setter with bindable
> events named
>     >     > "foo" on
>     >     >     > the output class.  This is super important in Flash since
>     > classes are
>     >     >     > sealed (not dynamic) and so you must declare slots to
> hold
>     >     > references to
>     >     >     > instances on the output class. But there are cases where
> an
>     > instance
>     >     > is
>     >     >     > referenced by some other piece of the MXML file but the
>     > developer
>     >     > did not
>     >     >     > specify an id.  Binding expressions can do that.  I think
>     > there are
>     >     > other
>     >     >     > scenarios, but I can't think of them right now.  In these
>     > cases the
>     >     >     > compiler generates an effectiveID and a simple private
> var on
>     > the
>     >     > output
>     >     >     > class for every effectiveID.  In the MXML output, the
>     > effectiveID is
>     >     > given
>     >     >     > the property name "_id".
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > 2)  The framework code has UIBase with an "id" property
> setter
>     > that
>     >     > sets
>     >     >     > the id on the HTMLElement.  In addition, the
>     > MXMLDataIntepreter has
>     >     > logic
>     >     >     > that tests if a property being set on an instance is
> named
>     > "id" or
>     >     > "_id".
>     >     >     > If "id", additional logic sets the slot on the document
> and
>     > sets the
>     >     > "id"
>     >     >     > property on the instance to set the HTMLElement's id.  If
>     > "_id", it
>     >     > only
>     >     >     > sets the slot on the document, but not the instance,
> since it
>     > could
>     >     > assume
>     >     >     > that no other code should care that the instance has its
> id
>     > set (and
>     >     > thus,
>     >     >     > for browser versions, whether the HTMLElement id is set).
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > "localId" is a "compile-time property".  It is one of a
> few
>     >     > properties
>     >     >     > that don't actually exist on the instance's ActionScript
>     >     > implementation.
>     >     >     > Other examples are "includeIn" and "excludeFrom" for
> states.
>     > So, the
>     >     >     > localId" doesn't introduce a new problem for IDEs, they
> all
>     > had to
>     >     > deal
>     >     >     > with includeIn/excludeFrom already, but it is true that
> IDEs
>     > still
>     >     > need to
>     >     >     > learn about it.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > The localID implementation before Greg's changes
> leveraged the
>     >     > effectiveID
>     >     >     > aspect of all of this code.  It did not generate bindable
>     >     > getter/setters
>     >     >     > "just in case" the element with the localID was used in
>     > Bindings.
>     >     > It did
>     >     >     > not set the instance's id which would run code to set the
>     >     > HTMLElement's
>     >     >     > id.  However, if the element with a localId was used in a
>     > binding
>     >     >     > expression then you would get a warning.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Greg's changes appear to generate bindable
> getter/setters for
>     > all
>     >     >     > localIDs.  This will work for now, but IMO, isn't as
> PAYG as it
>     >     > could be.
>     >     >     > Ideally, the compiler would find out if the localID is
> used in
>     > the
>     >     > source
>     >     >     > expression of a binding expression and only then
> generate the
>     >     > bindable
>     >     >     > getter/setter.  FWIW, another possible fix would be to
>     > suppress the
>     >     >     > warning, but there might be a timing issue around
> effectveIDs
>     > used in
>     >     >     > states.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > IMO, any proposal to add another actual property on every
>     > instance of
>     >     >     > UIBase "just-in-case" someone is going to use multiple
>     > instances of
>     >     > an MXML
>     >     >     > file doesn't seem PAYG to me.  This is why we originally
> chose
>     > the
>     >     > current
>     >     >     > implementation.  Any proposal that makes the setter for
> "id"
>     > do an
>     >     > extra
>     >     >     > check "just-in-case" the instance is used in multiple
>     > instances of
>     >     > an MXML
>     >     >     > file doesn't seem PAYG to me either.  We could change the
>     > meaning
>     >     > of, or
>     >     >     > name of "localID", but then it is still a compile-time
>     > property that
>     >     > IDE's
>     >     >     > have to handle.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > One question I have is whether the developer of an MXML
>     > Component
>     >     > "knows"
>     >     >     > that the component  is intended to have multiple
> instances or
>     > not.
>     >     > If not,
>     >     >     > the problem gets harder, as the generated output need to
> be
>     > told
>     >     > whether to
>     >     >     > set the HTMLElement id or not.  If the developer
> "knows", we
>     > could
>     >     > find
>     >     >     > some way to tell the compiler to generate all "Id" as
> what we
>     > are
>     >     > currently
>     >     >     > generating for "localId".   Thinking about it now, I
> can't
>     > think of
>     >     > why, in
>     >     >     > a single MXML file, you would need to sometimes set "id"
> and
>     > other
>     >     > times
>     >     >     > set "localId".   I think either you want all ids in a
> file to
>     > not
>     >     > set the
>     >     >     > HTMLElement ids or not.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > And if that's true, then we can think of ideas to treat
> the id
>     >     > property in
>     >     >     > a file instead of a per-MXML-tag way.   One way to do
> that is a
>     >     > compiler
>     >     >     > option, but then you would have to compile that MXML file
>     > separately
>     >     > (or
>     >     >     > with other multi-instance MXML files).  Another is some
> sort of
>     >     >     > "directive", maybe metadata or a special comment.   In AS
>     > files, we
>     >     > already
>     >     >     > have special metadata and comments for compiler
> directives.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Of course, I could be wrong...
>     >     >     > -Alex
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > On 11/2/18, 10:13 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.dove@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Hi Piotr,
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Thanks for your interest in this. Just to be clear, I
>     > don't want
>     >     > to
>     >     >     > claim
>     >     >     >     that this is 'my idea' - it's more a re-visit of
> things
>     > that
>     >     > have been
>     >     >     >     discussed before, and is probably very similar to
> some
>     > options
>     >     > that
>     >     >     > were
>     >     >     >     decided against previously. I just wondered if
> anyone had
>     >     > changed their
>     >     >     >     mind about this. I'm only raising it after some
> initial
>     > use of
>     >     > localId
>     >     >     > and
>     >     >     >     just my using reaction to that experience (possibly
> heavily
>     >     > influenced
>     >     >     > by
>     >     >     >     the red messages I see in Intellij).
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     At the moment we have
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     <instance id="setDOMid" />
>     >     >     >     <instance localId="doNotSetDOMId" />
>     >     >     >     These seem to work well, but the second one is not
> nice in
>     > my
>     >     > IDE,
>     >     >     > compared
>     >     >     >     to support for the first one.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     <instance id="regularId" localId="localId" />
>     >     >     >     This probably should be an error for the current
>     > implementation,
>     >     > as
>     >     >     > Harbs
>     >     >     >     has pointed out. But at the moment it is possible
> and 'id'
>     > wins.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     What I am suggesting is that we reconsider to have
> only
>     > one 'id'
>     >     > and a
>     >     >     >     second boolean flag to 'switch' it to localOnly or
> not.
>     > This flag
>     >     >     > could be
>     >     >     >     'localId' or 'localIdOnly', whatever seems best - I
> will
>     > use
>     >     >     >     'localIdOnly'  below to differentiate from the above.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     <Instance id="myLocalOnlyId" localIdOnly="true" />
>     >     >     >     <Instance id="myLegacyId" localIdOnly ="false" />
>     >     >     >     <Instance id="myId"  />
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     By default 'localIdOnly' would be false when it is
> not
>     >     > specified, so
>     >     >     > the
>     >     >     >     same behaviour as it is now - the 3rd case above.
>     >     >     >     But I think it might be helpful to have the option
> to have
>     > a
>     >     > global
>     >     >     > config
>     >     >     >     for this so you could do a global default as a
> compiler
>     > setting
>     >     > to
>     >     >     > set it
>     >     >     >     to true by default - e.g. like 'ignore coercion' is
> set up
>     > iirc.
>     >     > This
>     >     >     > might
>     >     >     >     suit some people who prefer to 'start with things
> off and
>     > switch
>     >     > them
>     >     >     > on
>     >     >     >     only if needed'.
>     >     >     >     localIdOnly in the examples above is a compile time
>     > mxml-only tag
>     >     >     > setting
>     >     >     >     and is not propagated to the instantiated
> components, so
>     > it is
>     >     > not a
>     >     >     > real
>     >     >     >     value assignment to the instance and does not exist
> as a
>     >     > property on
>     >     >     > the
>     >     >     >     instances.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     What this could mean: All IDEs still see the id as
> 'normal'
>     >     > legacy use
>     >     >     > -
>     >     >     >     for code completion, bindings, script block
> references
>     > etc. The
>     >     > new
>     >     >     >     'unknown'  localIdOnly boolean attribute is the only
> thing
>     > that
>     >     > IDEs
>     >     >     > would
>     >     >     >     need to special-case, which I think should be easier
> than
>     > the
>     >     > localId
>     >     >     >     string variation (I assume).
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:01 PM Piotr Zarzycki <
>     >     >     > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>
>     >     >     >     wrote:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Hi Greg,
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > I'm really happy that you are helping Carlos with
> that!
>     > He may
>     >     > move
>     >     >     > forward
>     >     >     >     > much faster. I just have question to following:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > "-My understanding is that best practice is to
> avoid
>     > multiple
>     >     >     > identical ids
>     >     >     >     > in the browser, irrespective of whether the
> browser is
>     >     > forgiving of
>     >     >     > that or
>     >     >     >     > not. If so, it might be good to have at least an
> option
>     > to set
>     >     > the
>     >     >     > default
>     >     >     >     > implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM ids
> 'off'
>     > by
>     >     > default,
>     >     >     > 'on'
>     >     >     >     > explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by accident').
> Maybe
>     > some
>     >     > sort of
>     >     >     >     > import wizard for a legacy flex project could do
>     > something
>     >     > like this
>     >     >     > in an
>     >     >     >     > IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler
> config
>     > thing
>     >     > too
>     >     >     >     > perhaps."
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Does your idea is saying that if I have some Flex
> app or
>     > even
>     >     > write
>     >     >     > some on
>     >     >     >     > my own setting that option to ON - change the  way
> how
>     > things
>     >     > are
>     >     >     >     > outputting after compilation ? Do you mean that:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > <Button id="myid" /> - Option is ON
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > output will be:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > <Button localId="myid" />
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > I'm sorry if I misunderstand you completely :)
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Thanks,
>     >     >     >     > Piotr
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > pt., 2 lis 2018 o 08:31 Greg Dove <
> greg.dove@gmail.com>
>     >     > napisał(a):
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > > In collaboration with Carlos, I worked on a
> compiler
>     > fix for
>     >     > some
>     >     >     > issues
>     >     >     >     > > identified with localId in the javascript
> output. I
>     > pushed
>     >     > that a
>     >     >     > short
>     >     >     >     > > while ago. This fixes
>     >     >     >     > > -binding into the localId (in my local test
> cases) and
>     >     >     >     > > -some occasional issues with referencing the
> instance
>     > from
>     >     > within
>     >     >     > script
>     >     >     >     > > blocks in release (minified) code.
>     >     >     >     > > Or at least, it does so for the cases I have been
>     > testing. If
>     >     >     > anyone else
>     >     >     >     > > sees remaining issues with this feature that
> need more
>     >     > attention,
>     >     >     > please
>     >     >     >     > > let me know.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > Now on to the 'subject' :
>     >     >     >     > > As part of 'getting familiar' with this I went
> back to
>     > read
>     >     > old
>     >     >     > threads
>     >     >     >     > > about 'id v.s localId'.
>     >     >     >     > > I *think* these [1] [2] were the main ones, but
> maybe I
>     >     > missed
>     >     >     > some other
>     >     >     >     > > discussions.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > After reading these, I wondered if anyone had
> changed
>     > their
>     >     > views
>     >     >     > about
>     >     >     >     > the
>     >     >     >     > > implementation as it is, after having used it
> for a
>     > while.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > It may be too late to change things, but here
> are my
>     > quick
>     >     >     > thoughts about
>     >     >     >     > > this:
>     >     >     >     > > -My understanding is that best practice is to
> avoid
>     > multiple
>     >     >     > identical
>     >     >     >     > ids
>     >     >     >     > > in the browser, irrespective of whether the
> browser is
>     >     > forgiving
>     >     >     > of that
>     >     >     >     > or
>     >     >     >     > > not. If so, it might be good to have at least an
>     > option to
>     >     > set the
>     >     >     >     > default
>     >     >     >     > > implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM
> ids
>     > 'off' by
>     >     >     > default, 'on'
>     >     >     >     > > explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by
> accident').
>     > Maybe
>     >     > some sort
>     >     >     > of
>     >     >     >     > > import wizard for a legacy flex project could do
>     > something
>     >     > like
>     >     >     > this in
>     >     >     >     > an
>     >     >     >     > > IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler
>     > config
>     >     > thing too
>     >     >     >     > perhaps.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > -I can't think of a scenario where I would want
> to set
>     > both
>     >     > id and
>     >     >     >     > localId
>     >     >     >     > > at the same time or what doing so would mean.
> Either
>     > you
>     >     > want to
>     >     >     > set the
>     >     >     >     > > DOM id or you don't, in which case missing id and
>     > defined
>     >     > localId
>     >     >     > is more
>     >     >     >     > > like a boolean for not setting DOM id (the
>     > implementation is
>     >     > not,
>     >     >     > but to
>     >     >     >     > me
>     >     >     >     > > it seems that it could -maybe should- be). Maybe
> I am
>     > missing
>     >     >     > something
>     >     >     >     > > here.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > -'id' is the basis for code
> completion/intelligence in
>     > legacy
>     >     >     > IDEs. Using
>     >     >     >     > > 'localId' means this does not work in the legacy
> IDEs
>     > and
>     >     > newer
>     >     >     > IDEs need
>     >     >     >     > > to add custom support for it. Anything that
> keeps 'id'
>     > as the
>     >     >     > primary
>     >     >     >     > local
>     >     >     >     > > identifier seems like the best way to get more
> life
>     > out of
>     >     > legacy
>     >     >     > IDEs.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > So to me, the simplest option seems to be more
> along
>     > the
>     >     > lines of
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > <Instance id="myLocalOnlyId" localId="true" />
>     >     >     >     > > <Instance id="myLegacyId" localId="false" />
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > Semantically it is probably better as
> 'localIdOnly'
>     > for the
>     >     > boolean
>     >     >     >     > > setting, but 'localId' is shorter (which is
> perhaps
>     > better).
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > In this case, you get more mileage from older
> IDEs,
>     > and a
>     >     > simpler
>     >     >     >     > > implementation for updating IDEs to handle the
> extra
>     >     > mxml-only
>     >     >     > boolean
>     >     >     >     > > setting. In simple terms everything else works
> the
>     > same so
>     >     > the
>     >     >     > IDEs still
>     >     >     >     > > work for code intelligence.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > An unspecified 'localId' boolean in mxml would
>     > currently be
>     >     > the
>     >     >     > same as
>     >     >     >     > > false, but could possibly have a global
> configuration
>     >     > default -
>     >     >     > not sure
>     >     >     >     > > about that, but maybe it could be useful.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > If there is an issue with styling on the swf
> side with
>     > valid
>     >     >     > multiple ids
>     >     >     >     > > vs. html, then I think the swf side could
> perhaps be
>     >     > outlawed in
>     >     >     > favour
>     >     >     >     > of
>     >     >     >     > > best practice for html. Too much? :)
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > Anyhow, I am just raising this now in case
> anyone else
>     > has
>     >     > changed
>     >     >     > their
>     >     >     >     > > thinking after using it as-is for a while, and
> before
>     > it
>     >     > gets too
>     >     >     > late to
>     >     >     >     > > consider changing it (if it is not already too
> late).
>     >     >     >     > > If there is some consensus to change this, I am
> happy
>     > to
>     >     > work on
>     >     >     > it.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > > 1.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i40.html%23a63276&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353fe11057b840e63f4108d6411c6726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767987606791540&amp;sdata=VIb%2Fg6ORvWPykGfM11Bm5af4gJ9xCoVBKTnyazW2fqQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >     >     > > 2.
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i60.html%23a63919&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353fe11057b840e63f4108d6411c6726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767987606791540&amp;sdata=8qcfxi8NqqOxZG2nETpM7Er8B1hxsP%2Fk1SjSnVvA0Qc%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >     >     > >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > --
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Piotr Zarzycki
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Patreon: *
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353fe11057b840e63f4108d6411c6726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767987606791540&amp;sdata=3D6NYJ4VjGccUkI86dls9cFzsO3rFvZumzSvwHov9DI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >     >     > <
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353fe11057b840e63f4108d6411c6726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767987606791540&amp;sdata=3D6NYJ4VjGccUkI86dls9cFzsO3rFvZumzSvwHov9DI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >     > >*
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>

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