4 ms·

Looks good, but comparing to other systems like this one but for React, it looks it's relying on plain HTML structure to compose layouts vs. using components sy

by methyl 10y ago

Looks good, but comparing to other systems like this one but for React, it looks it's relying on plain HTML structure to compose layouts vs. using components system to generate and encapsulate HTML. From what I know Angular 2 supports components so I wonder why is this not leveraged here?

water42 10y ago
what do you mean by this? you can create a component for any one of their html/css components with custom functionality and "plain html" (it's not really plain since it has two way data binding), then use and reuse that component like any other
- methyl 10y ago
  I meant that you have to create those components - they don't come with the library itself, contrary to [1] Blueprint for example. [1] http://blueprintjs.com/ http://blueprintjs.com/
eudes 10y ago
I think what might be happening is a small confusion between our deliverables. Some teams we worked with wanted to use as much of Clarity as possible but couldn't switch to Angular in the short term, so we made sure we could deliver "Clarity UI" and "Clarity NG" separately. Clarity UI is pure CSS: you just include it on your page, use the correct markup and classes and our styles will be applied. Kind of like using Bootstrap without their JS (most of us have done this). Clarity NG depends on Clarity UI for styling, but provides full-blown Angular 2 components with the correct markup in their templates, two-way binding, ... That's the easiest way to use Clarity, but it forces you to use Angular. Unfortunately, our documentation doesn't split the two yet, it starts with the pure HTML/CSS version and then showcases the Angular 2 components after that. Probably explains the confusion. I hope this helped!
- methyl 10y ago
  > Unfortunately, our documentation doesn't split the two yet, it starts with the pure HTML/CSS version and then showcases the Angular 2 components after that. Probably explains the confusion. That's where the confusion come from, thanks for explanation!

by methyl 10y ago

water42 10y ago

what do you mean by this? you can create a component for any one of their html/css components with custom functionality and "plain html" (it's not really plain since it has two way data binding), then use and reuse that component like any other

methyl 10y ago
I meant that you have to create those components - they don't come with the library itself, contrary to [1] Blueprint for example. [1] http://blueprintjs.com/ http://blueprintjs.com/

eudes 10y ago

I think what might be happening is a small confusion between our deliverables. Some teams we worked with wanted to use as much of Clarity as possible but couldn't switch to Angular in the short term, so we made sure we could deliver "Clarity UI" and "Clarity NG" separately. Clarity UI is pure CSS: you just include it on your page, use the correct markup and classes and our styles will be applied. Kind of like using Bootstrap without their JS (most of us have done this). Clarity NG depends on Clarity UI for styling, but provides full-blown Angular 2 components with the correct markup in their templates, two-way binding, ... That's the easiest way to use Clarity, but it forces you to use Angular. Unfortunately, our documentation doesn't split the two yet, it starts with the pure HTML/CSS version and then showcases the Angular 2 components after that. Probably explains the confusion. I hope this helped!

methyl 10y ago
> Unfortunately, our documentation doesn't split the two yet, it starts with the pure HTML/CSS version and then showcases the Angular 2 components after that. Probably explains the confusion. That's where the confusion come from, thanks for explanation!