On 9/7/16, 3:56 AM, "OK" <p...@olafkrueger.net> wrote: >Kessler CTR Mark J wrote >> Should not use flash in the name. The main SDK can target flash player, >> air, and native apps (with captive runtime). > >Hmm, I thought that all these runtimes are under the same hood wich is >called "Flash platform" by Adobe. >Seems that the Adobe naming confused me also ;-)
Well you do need tools from the Adobe Flash team to target the native apps. I agree that there is a possibility that better naming could reduce confusion, but I also agree with Mark that renaming the current Flex SDK as "Flex Flash Platform" wouldn't be my first choice. > > >Kessler CTR Mark J wrote >> Then there is FlexJS which is divergent from the main SDK. So I think >> Apache Flex as a title would do just fine. > >Ok, but that means that both SDKs exists side by side: >->Apache Flex >->Apache FlexJS > >But my understanding is that FlexJS is under the hood of Apache Flex: >->Apache Flex >-->FlexJS >-->Previous Flex Not sure what you mean by under-the-hood. Sure, Apache Flex is the project name, but for product names, I think we do want the Apache FlexJS SDK to be just another option along with the Apache Flex SDK. I am hopeful that the "JS" in FlexJS will be enough of a differentiator. I've tried to avoid using "legacy" when referencing the current Flex SDK. Longer term, what if someone writes a TypeScript emitter for FalconJX? I think we'd still put it under the FlexJS moniker and not start using the term FlexTS, but I could be convinced otherwise. My 2 cents, -Alex
