Igor,
Indeed and Om pointed out, you're free with your vote, the point is the
arguments you gave to justify your negative vote doesn't seem to exist
anymore, I mean, even your last one:
> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
> should include all of it.
It would mean this plethora of Flex frameworks owners should decide to
donate their framework before we can accept one, how do you think it can
possible to do so ?
How the number or the order of the donations is important now it is well
stated those framework will not be included in the SDK or forced to be used
but only taken under the Apache Flex umbrella given an easier way for
contributors to make it evolved which will be the same for all other
frameworks as soon as they will be donated if the owners want to.
Have you got more argument to discuss ?
-Fred
-----Message d'origine-----
From: OmPrakash Muppirala
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:01 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] {DISCUSS} Oprtional MVC/IOC Frameworks Donation: Swiz
Framework Donation
Igor, you are free to vote however you want, but nowhere in the proposal
does it say that Flex SDK users will be forced to use Swiz.
Thanks,
Om
On Jun 3, 2013 8:30 AM, "Igor Costa" <igorco...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've explained in my previous e-mail, why I vote -1 (binding).
Maybe you missed the e-mail on previous thread. But here's the mention.
A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code,
> rather than force you on our perspective way.
> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
> should include all of it.
> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
----------------------------
Igor Costa
www.igorcosta.com
www.igorcosta.org
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Dasa Paddock <dpadd...@esri.com> wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
>
