On 5/16/15, 6:54 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >@Alex > >I am still totally interested in FlexJS, I can only imagine how Josh's UI >framework could totally add to the validity of a developer taking the next >step into a full fledged UI/Application framework like FlexJS. > >On that note, my intuition says that once the two frameworks start to >mature, we will easily find a way to bridge the gap of MXML in a very >logical fashion, enabling both frameworks to leverage MXML and IDE support >in the same way. > >I see each framework having a use case, FlexJS HTML solution and Josh's >totally geared for graphics and a high performance mobile type set like >Feathers is today. > >Disclaimer, I may just be thinking to much right now. Giving people >options >and tiers is always good for technology. IMO, we’ve finished removing any Flex SDK dependencies from Falcon/FalconJX and Feathers should just be another component set. I’m interested in discussing with Josh as to whether he’ll get to his finish line faster by joining up with FlexJS. Sure, Peter and I and others are working on a UI component set, but we want FlexJS tool chain to be component set agnostic. We’re just taking AS classes, gluing them together with more AS and cross compiling some AS and swapping in JS definitions for other classes. It isn’t clear Josh needs another emitter as much as different set of AS and JS classes the current emitters can handle. -Alex
