+1 - I defer to Alex's suggetions ~a~ www.ayobinitie.com http://mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 2 June 2013 10:06, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Binding > > Thanks, > Om > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:02 AM, João Fernandes > <joaopedromartinsfernan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (non binding) > > > > To me, all those points were already clear in the previous thread. > > > > > > On 2 June 2013 10:57, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> +1 (non binding) > >> > >> > >> 2013/6/2 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> > >> > This vote comes from an original vote thread declared as null (see > >> > original thread for info about motivations): > >> > > >> > http://markmail.org/message/o6zjmorfh4lxuygo > >> > > >> > The new vote thread is considering the donation of the optional > MVC/IOC > >> > Swiz Framework. > >> > > >> > Points taken from the original vote thread: > >> > > >> > * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK > >> with > >> > a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well > >> > designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's > >> > optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable > >> > version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now > >> there's > >> > no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer > >> > working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and > >> wiki > >> > content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott > (creator > >> of > >> > Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP > >> > support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex > since > >> it > >> > brings something very new to client web technologies and that will > >> require > >> > evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). > >> > > >> > > >> > Here's the new points from Alex Harui to make clear what it implies: > >> > > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go > >> into > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the > SDK. > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. > People > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or > >> > favoritism. > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same > >> process. > >> > > >> > This vote thread will be open for the next 72 hours > >> > > >> > Please make your vote. > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > João Fernandes >
