The feature I probably use most often in the zip functionality. It has the best zip library (formally FZip).
But there’s tons of helper functions and containers as well. Take a look here: https://github.com/AS3Commons and here: https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/source/browse/trunk On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:01 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we have a list of features or an URL we can look at? > > Thanks, > Om > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1. >> >> There’s lot’s useful stuff in AS3Commons. >> >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It has been my understanding that any existing code base that gets stored >>> in an Apache Flex repo must be "donated" via the Apache Software Grant >>> process, which essentially requires that the author of every line of code >>> in the code base needs to sign a legally-binding document. >>> >>> I just found out that, while that is still the preferred method, if a >> code >>> base is already under the Apache License, it can also be "adopted" with >>> much less hassle. >>> >>> Christophe Herreman, who also happens to be on our PMC, and one of the >>> major contributors to AS3Commons, is interested in having Apache Flex >>> adopt the AS3Commons code. I think this would be a good move for Apache >>> Flex because we use some of AS3Commons in the Installer already so it >>> would be good to have this code in a place we can control, especially if >>> we want to see how much of it will work in FlexJS. >>> >>> So, first we should discuss whether we want to adopt AS3Commons and >>> actually vote on it, then we will try to contact by email every past >>> contributor to AS3Commons to see if they have any objections to having >> the >>> code base adopted by Apache Flex. The wording of the email is still >> being >>> finalized on the Apache legal-discuss mailing list, but basically, >> instead >>> of having to track down every past contributor and get their signature on >>> a Software Grant, we can now just gather email responses from as many of >>> those past contributors as we can. >>> >>> After the email goes out, we'll wait 30 days or so for responses. If we >>> get an objection from a past contributor, then we'll look to see what >>> lines of code they contributed and determine what the impact would be of >>> not having those lines of code in our code base. It might be easily >>> replaceable. If we don't hear from a past contributor we will look at >> the >>> risk of what might happen if they do respond later with an objection. >>> >>> So, we don't have to actually hear from every past contributor in order >> to >>> proceed with the adoption, but we might decide not to complete the >>> adoption if we get objections from or don't get a response from a major >>> contributor. >>> >>> Technically and legally, we could "fork" this code without permission >> from >>> anybody since the code is under the Apache License, but socially, Apache >>> wants all code to come in voluntarily, which is why we want to make sure >>> there are no objections from past contributors as well as anyone on this >>> mailing list. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> -Alex >>> >> >>
