In reply to: Arda Beyazoglu, I repeat this, here, because the blog is moderated and does not allow writing, this comment corresponds to the last blog post dated 08/29: "Announcing Sencha Ext JS 7.0 and Tooling GA".

Hello


With Marc we already had this discussion, it is technically possible to support shadow dom without having a penalty (please, see comments at: https://www.sencha.com/blog/extwebco...now-available/ search for: “using CSS variables” )


Among the options available to solve it, it is using CSS variables, invest in development effort to refactoring the global theme, in a minimum set of common themes, and a mini theme for each component.


Or in the worst case, have the option to run on chrome (given the target of extjs as business applications that have some control of their execution environment), using Constructable Stylesheets until the problem is finally resolved (that could be a solution for us).


When the new ::part, ::theme and shared css styles specifications are completed in the future, that work will remain in effect.


That is the way that other sets of components which do support shadow dom solve it.


IMHO, In the end it is not a technical impediment, it is in my opinion, a saving of development effort, which "sencha" has done to the detriment of a complete product with the specification of web components.


Anyway, if you are not going to invest time in implementing a complete specification of web components in my opinion, just like this one, without shadow dom, it should not be called ext js web components, but rather: extjs custom elements.


Therefore, please, I would like to know if at least Marcs could facilitate and ensure the possibility of choosing the shadow dom mode, and we could try to see how to fix ourselves, until “sencha” decided to complete the product.


What remains to be seen if there is no other missing work, such as the removal of all other global dependencies to function for shadow dom to work. Since if it's just a matter of css globality, we can still use our applications in chrome that supports shared styles.


I hope this is not taken as an attack on the product or the people who work on it, but rather on a constructive criticism and demand for the product to have a usability basis within the context of its natural use (webcomponents == shadowdom).


Without shadow dom, it is impossible to use components from different sources in applications that already support shadow dom. As is our case. Until that does not change, for us the product is not usable.


In a nutshell, we are today paying for a product that we cannot use because it does not fully correspond to the specification it claims to have.


Thanks


Claudio