I've always thought that someone implementing the Flash classes is a good idea, but that it makes the most sense as an external project. In other words, not included with Apache FlexJS. There's nothing wrong with external projects. In fact, they're a sign of a healthy community! We should be encouraging them and promoting them.
I agree with Alex's points that including the Flash classes in FlexJS will set expectations of compatibility that may not be desirable from our side. It also keeps FlexJS bound to the legacy of Flash, instead of showing that the project is evolving into something new and interesting. - Josh On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 4/19/16, 12:01 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >webgl is not a very good name, because a lot of the code is actually > >canvas rather than webgl. > > OK. I realized that Lizhi has been calling it SpriteFlexJS. So that > could be in the package name. > > Actually this might be a good time to discuss names in terms of business > models. Lizhi, I want to make sure you are aware that whatever name we > put on your code base will belong to Apache and you won't be able to sell > software using that name. This is a public mailing list, so feel free to > not answer or write me directly, but an important point is this: I'm not > sure how you plan to keep contributing to the SpriteFlexJS code, but if it > involves selling the software what most people do is come up with two > names, one for the for-profit software and one for the open source code > base. For example, the Apache Subversion project doesn't let other > for-profit products be called Subversion, but they can use SVN. Adobe > PhoneGap is a for-profit product based on Apache Cordova. > > > > >What might make more sense would be to keep all the flash packages as > >experimental, and if we can identify robust piece of the package, we can > >repurpose some of the code to be in separate packages. > > Another option is that we don't bring in all of this code right away. > Didn't this thread start based on interest in Lizhi's ByteArray? Lizhi > could donate that one file and we could use it under a different package > name. > > > > >I see value in keeping the flash packages as such, because it will likely > >help spur more people who want complete “flash-like” APIs to do work on > >it. As Lizhi points out, there are incomplete areas in his code. > > > >As far as demand for Flash and Starling goes: I expect that folks who > >want more support will have to help out in improving it. Again, I hope > >this will help attract more people to work on it. > > In short, I'm just wondering if the work on Flash and Starling is Flex. > Should it have its own community? FlexJS will hopefully have many > customers and not all of their code should be in our code base. > > -Alex > >
