If someone will help me with that I'll do it. What I'm thinking is when you create a new Flex project you get all of the SWC's by default.
So in this case we have something like this: [image: Inline image 1] We need to add the new components set in there, the as3commons in there and the other packages we have but aren't including. Some of the new Spark components should be put into the Spark project folders. "But they may not be perfect!" Put. them. in. People will finally find them for once, then use them, then we can get some bug reports and fix things as they come up. PUT THEM IN. It may make one tough release but we'll be working towards a feature complete spark release and we'll successfully have integrated an external project (as3commons) into the main project. On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:33 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, you committer ;-) You have all the power to drag those components and > put them in. I like your idea. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:27 AM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since Flex was open sourced it's felt like to me it's stagnated. We had > all > > of these new components donated or proposed to be donated proposed to be > > worked on and I haven't seen any of them. I think it's because it's in > some > > white board somewhere. I hate that. Put them in the main branch. Put it > in. > > Then we can see them in code completion. Then we can start getting bug > > reports as their being used. > > > > Put as3commons into our.main.branch.utils. If that's org.apache.utils > then > > fine. I also figure if someone is upgrading their SDK and we've renamed > the > > package then there is no conflict. They can remove the link to > > as3commons.swc and all the API's will cause errors. Then they just go in > > and use the new packages. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Michael Schmalle < > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > IIRC most of the projects have some pretty thorough unit tests as well. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:14 PM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for renaming it. make it part of the main package. that way we > have > > to > > > > commit to it. if we put it off to the side there's more "it's a side > > > > project. we don't need to maintain it." > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kessler CTR Mark J < > > > > mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Good point, we should keep it the same then. However if we do have > > to > > > > > reorganize it in the future, we can go over options then. > > > > > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:52 AM > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd either leave it as is: org.as3commons > > > > > Or add apache: org.apache.as3commons > > > > > Or add apache.flex: org.apache.flex.as3commons > > > > > Or hint at Apache Commons: org.apache.commons.as3 > > > > > > > > > > There is backward compatibility to be considered, so if we rename > the > > > > > packages folks would have to change their source code to use it, so > > I'd > > > > > probably lean towards leaving it as is. > > > > > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
