Peter, To be sure, I'm not criticising the work done on FlexJS - I did a fair bit of it myself - I'm just (after Alex's insistence) stating the reasons I've chosen to approach 'export to JS' from a different angle.
EdB On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > I'm sure Alex is composing a longer response, but I wanted to chime in > having developed a number of beads and components of FlexJS. > > FlexJS is designed to be a pay-as-go system, keeping the app size as small > as possible; even a small Flex app brings in a lot of code. > > I have to agree that beads should be more generic and easier to connect. > The reason for many beads is so you can add on just the functionality you > need. Perhaps having a reduced number of beads that are more generic would > make it easier to choose. Then, if you found yourself using the same > combination repeatedly, you would make this a custom component in your app. > > And yes, the examples only go so far and new things have appeared. This is > at alpha stage so there will be iterations. We needed to get sufficient > components together so we could survey how it all hangs together. > > We are hoping more people will join the project and help with the > direction and development. > > I think the core idea is sound and could use some tweaking. > > Peter > > > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:11 AM, "DarkStone" <darkst...@163.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
