Well if we are moving some of the stuff around, but want to allow people to still find it... Should we make the utils and AS3commons its own namespace / library to make it an easier transition for people? Then they would just have to add a new header property to access the previous components / methods.
xmlns:u="library://ns.apache.org/flex/utils" -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 12:25 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons I'm not a fan of changing the package names. Already this week we heard folks wanting AMF because they don't want to change their backend, and I've heard several folks wanting a more Spark-like API surface for FlexJS. My new mantra for 2016 is to try to not make more work for folks who are migrating their code. What do we really gain by changing package names and making folks alter their code? Would we also switch out mx and spark for org.apache.flex? I suppose we could bundle AS3Commons with the SDK, but keep in mind that I think we want to make as much of AS3Commons work for FlexJS as well. @Chris and/or Christophe, what other libraries is AS3Commons dependent on that we need to be concerned about? Thanks, -Alex
