Slightly off topic, but if someone is kind enough to give you a gift, the proper response is to say thank you and accept it. What you do after you accept it is another story.
The Apache process of discussing if we should accept said gift is kind of a dick move. No offence, but IMHO this behaviour has to stop. And this is not directed at you Harbs or anyone in particular. I'm not saying we don't need to vet a donation, or decide if it should go into core or be setup as a side project. But if someone wants to donate code they own or built and it's legal then accept it and move on. People, and myself thought that Apache Flex was going to be the place where we make Flash and Flex thrive again. I thought we'd have plenty of donated components and projects but you hear someone offer to donate something and then it seems to die and you don't hear from them again. It's a huge turn off to work on a project, want to donate it and then hear your community start talking about if they should accept your donation or not. That's not progress is suppression. IIRC Alex once said he's interested in collecting everything related to Flex (and the Flash Platform?) here. So am I. And that's good enough for me. >From my perspective, Apache has some anti social processes and procedures in practice. But the guidelines say quite clearly that a community can run itself how it seems fit. So, something needs to change in my opinion. Sorry, if I'm ranting. Anyway, I want to include lihzi's code and keep the package name the same for the reasons Harbs mentioned and if any future projects are cross compiled we avoid problems by that as well. I also suggest we adopt a process to accept license compatible platform related future donations automatically and let our discussions focus on whether they should be in core or in a secondary location. On Apr 17, 2016 6:06 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lizhi has put together some impressive classes to implement the Flash > drawing APIs for FlexJS using Canvas.[1] > > Lizhi has offered to donate the code[2] and I believe has just filed an > ICLA. > > The question now remains whether we want to include the code. I personally > see a lot of value in the code as it offers a lot of functionality users > are used to out of the box using the same APIs. > > I do have some questions about accepting the code: > 1. Whether to keep the packages as they are. Currently, they use the > flash.* packages to match the ones in playerglobal. One the one hand, this > makes a lot of sense in terms of migrating code because everything stays > exactly the same. On the other hand, the package names are misleading as > it’s not “Flash” packages. The alternate would be to wrap things in apache > flex packages, but that would add a lot of work in terms of conditional > compilation and redirection. I also don’t know if there are legal issues > with using the “flash” package. I can’t imagine what they might be, but > INOL… > > 2. How should these files be organized in FlexJS? This might be related to > the package names, but might not. I assume this is not “core”. Should it > all go into a single project, or should it be split up into multiple > projects? > > Harbs > > [1]https://github.com/matrix3d/spriteflexjs > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flex-dev/201604.mbox/browser
