Aye, I guess I was reading his original post too directly, well anyway doesn't matter, whatever is decided with I will roll on.
Actually running FalconJX unit tests and it feels like a really weird dejavu. Mike On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >
