Hi Erik, Thank you very much for bringing this topic, it's the very topic I want to share my thoughts on.
>3 - Strands/Beads: it forces developers to know the insides of components, >adding a level of complexity and a steeper learning curve to the framework >4 - forced MVC: as an option it would be great, as a 'feature' not so much: >it makes smaller projects unnecessarily complicated (e.g. all examples) I totally agree all the 5 points you've made, especially the 2 points above, I studied FlexJS' Strands/Beads MVC concept before, it forced me to do a restricted MVC application design. In most case, developers should have the abilities to design their own MVC concepts, rather than having to follow a pre-designed MVC concept. That is why Flex named itself "Flex", the flexibility is the soul of Flex, isn't it : ) I think Flex Spark's SkinnableComponent and Skin are good enough to separate a component's Logic and Skin. The Logic part of the component can then be divided into Model and Controller in anyway the developer want them to be, that is already the case in Flex Spark architecture, developers can decide how to design their own MVC concepts and apply them to their custom components, it's better this way. Besides, there are already a huge amount of projects based on the existing Flex Spark architecture, it will be much better if FlexJS can base on the Spark architecture, and makes the existing Flex projects much easier to transit to FlexJS. It took a very long time (over 10 years) to have Flex come this way, to make the Flex Spark architecture popular is already hard enough, so for the FlexJS, a smoother and easier transition from Flex to FlexJS is much needed! Well that is just my personal opinion, I know there are already a lot of hard works were put into the current FlexJS, and I am much appreciated, I will contribute what I can, when I can in the future, these months I'm gonna be very busy though. DarkStone 2014-07-08 At 2014-07-08 04:29:40, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >OK, here goes - why I think the FlexJS concept can be improved upon (in no >particular order): > >1 - there is no migration path for existing Flex applications; this will >make enterprise users reluctant to accept the new framework, even though >during development FlexJS is limiting itself because it aims to please the >enterprise user (IE 'old' support) >2 - FlexJS requires a brand new framework on both the AS and JS side (apart >from some stuff that may cross compile), effectively doubling the effort to >bring it up to speed with other frameworks - including regular Flex >3 - Strands/Beads: it forces developers to know the insides of components, >adding a level of complexity and a steeper learning curve to the framework > I - by the time there are enough components/strands and beads to have a >useful framework, the set of beads will be too big to easily work with >(e.g. "org.apache.flex.html.beads.DataItemRendererFactoryForArrayData" or >"org.apache.flex.html.beads.controllers.ListSingleSelectionMouseController") > II - making beads work on all strands makes beads complicated; making >beads that don't work on all strands makes beads confusing for the developer >4 - forced MVC: as an option it would be great, as a 'feature' not so much: >it makes smaller projects unnecessarily complicated (e.g. all examples) >5 - lack of direction: FlexJS is a collection of proofs of concept, created >top down to make nice looking demos that are then abandoned or superseded >by other proofs of concept or demos. > >I think we already have a pretty nice AS framework, the Flex SDK, which I >intend to offer as-is. Rather, I plan to make the 'export to JS' feature a >part of the regular Flex SDK. That way the user can open any Flex project, >run the export and get a fully functional, identical looking application in >JS, or, worst case, a nice list from the compiler explaining which >components/properties don't (yet) work in JS and how to fix that. > >I'm interested to hear more about how you think this approach is related to >FlexJS. If there is any synergy to be had, I'm all for it! > >EdB > > > >On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophical". I see more similarities >> than differences between FlexJS and your approach of trying to mimic more >> of the current SDK in JS. In fact, I still hope to convince you that what >> you want to do is within the FlexJS charter so we can work together >> instead appearing to work on separate efforts. And then what you are >> working on would also be weakened by whatever it is you want to say. If >> you have a killer argument why folks should not be trying to compile MXML >> and AS to JS, I think the whole community will be better served by finding >> out why now. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 7/7/14 8:40 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >> >> >There are no technical issues per se that would need addressing to keep >> >FlexJS healthy. I made sure of that. >> > >> >My argument is basically philosophical, and I think my ranting about it in >> >public would weaken FlexJS' case, so I won't. >> > >> >EdB >> > >> > >> > >> >On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >> I think it has to be in public. This is open development. I'm hoping >> >>you >> >> will save me time by doing so. If we are doing something we shouldn't >> >>we >> >> should correct it now otherwise we'll waste time and energy doing more >> >> work in that direction only to find out that customers have the same >> >> feedback. >> >> >> >> Not that all of your feedback is guaranteed to be addressed: there's >> >> always a chance that what you don't like is philosophical rather than >> >> technical. That's why there are dozens of JS frameworks already and why >> >> you want to try a different approach. >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> On 7/3/14 12:00 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >You want to hear that in public, or do you want to take this off list? >> >> > >> >> >EdB >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I've been doing that as well for the last couple of years. I spent >> >> >>most of >> >> >> >my time getting FlexJS off the ground. But I don't agree with some >> >>of >> >> >>the >> >> >> >basic assumptions and choices that FlexJS has made. I said little or >> >> >> >nothing about it to give FlexJS a proper head start and to keep you >> >>and >> >> >> >Peter going. But now that I have re-evaluated what the project >> >>means to >> >> >> >me, >> >> >> >and what I would like to spend my time on when contributing, and I >> >> >>have to >> >> >> >give my take on Flex to JS a try. >> >> >> I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you don't agree with regarding >> >> >> FlexJS. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Ix Multimedia Software >> >> > >> >> >Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> >> >3521 VB Utrecht >> >> > >> >> >T. 06-51952295 >> >> >I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Ix Multimedia Software >> > >> >Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> >3521 VB Utrecht >> > >> >T. 06-51952295 >> >I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> >> > > >-- >Ix Multimedia Software > >Jan Luykenstraat 27 >3521 VB Utrecht > >T. 06-51952295 >I. www.ixsoftware.nl
