-1 (Binding) ---------------------------- Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carlos Velasco < carlos.velasco.bla...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > > 2013/6/3 Kessler CTR Mark J <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > I like the new verbiage better. > > > > -Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf > > Of Carlos Rovira > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 5:58 AM > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Subject: [VOTE] Oprtional MVC/IOC Frameworks Donation: Swiz Framework > > Donation > > > > 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. > > >
