Well I understand your point but, in this day and age, the success of a framework will come down to how well it integrates with other frameworks and now even languages. Just like our world with it's diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, a truly successful framework can integrate things created by others many hours of work that applies to the same use case.
I only brought up web components because I have seen some great examples of them with like polymer. It's the same reason I wrote the EXTERNC compiler for js shims. Creating adapters is a good thing IMHO, I was speaking of creating adapters for Web Components not spitting them out of MXML perse. Mike On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:22 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem with webcomponents is that it is not yet widely supported. > Only Chrome supports anything related to ShadowDOM, etc. > http://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdom > > The way I see this is that webcomponents is a way to make developers reuse > code easily and has no real runtime advantages. So, the approach of FlexJS > to let users define, compose and inherit components via MXML is more than > sufficient. I don't see a real need to spit out webcomponent based HTML as > the output of the FlexJS compilation step. What we are doing should work > perfectly. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Hi Om, > > > > I really have no idea as I am more down in the mud right now witht he > > compiler but, I know one thing on the horizon that we should integrate > and > > maybe even try with MXML or something and that is Web Components. I still > > need to do more research but now that is seems like we are making headway > > with AS and the DOM, I might spend some time reading. > > > > I also wonder if one side of this discussion could be if Apache Flex can > > augment the development of Angular, don't know, just talking. > > > > I tried a couple of the Hello World examples and the TODO app about a > month > > ago and totally hated add crap to HTML tags but, I did like the concept > of > > binding and stuff but, then again, MXML has been doing this for ages and > is > > Type strict. :) > > > > Mike > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:06 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala < > bigosma...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Here is a rundown of how to do things with AngularJS 2.0: > > > http://angular-tips.com/blog/2015/06/why-will-angular-2-rock/ > > > > > > As I walk through the details, I see the twists and turns they are > going > > > through to do seemingly simple things. The single biggest reason for > > that > > > is that there is no MXML like malleable way to declaratively create the > > UI > > > and to wire things up. > > > > > > I am interested in seeing a step by step comparison of doing things the > > > FlexJS way vs. AngularJS2.0 way. Here are a few things we can > > concentrate > > > on: > > > > > > 1. Module loading > > > 2. Classes > > > 4. Components > > > 5. Design Patterns > > > 6. Events > > > 7. Calling webservices > > > 8. Skinning > > > ... > > > > > > Anyone wants to volunteer to help write this document? This would > > involve > > > understanding and writing FlexJS code samples. This would also involve > > > understanding AngularJS2.0 as well. Which is a benefit on its own. > > > > > > Volunteers? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Om > > > > > >
