I believe that's the idea which we should bring into the new project. Let's be really specific about that on our page and we will not loose anything.
I would like to hear more whether Carlos in that shape would like to still help with that by creating website etc. I really don't want to put an mine energy on promoting stuff more than now. I would like to still have some rings calling FlexJS name. Piotr On Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 02:05 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > I agree that for getting new users who don't already know about Flex, that > having a name without Flex in it would be best. But I think Justin Hill > is saying, and I share his concern, that folks who are sitting on a Flex > app and thinking about migrating might be more attracted to a product > named FlexJS than some name without Flex in it. > > Further, I think we might want to have one product for the migrating Flex > customer and another for someone coming in without Flex background. The > getting started documentation might be different. One would leverage > existing knowledge of MXML and AS and draw comparisons between Flex and > FlexJS. Just about all migrating Flex customers don't need as much detail > on what RemoteObject and AMF is, for example. But a new person without > Flex background may not even be interested in RemoteObject. We could put > RemoteObject support in its own SWC and not ship that SWC in a package > that targets folks who don't know Flex. The release package for folks > without Flex background may not mention Flash Builder at all or contain > the Flash Builder integration modules, launch configs, and documentation. > It may not even support any other IDEs other than VSCode and maybe > Moonshine. > > I'm still trying to finish up build scripts that create a non-Adobe > release package. Once I get that done, I can try creating a different > non-Adobe release package that isn't a valid Flash Builder SDK and doesn't > contain any Flash Builder support and make sure it works with VSCode and > see if the Moonshine folks want to support it and what we would need to > change to make it work. And that package without Flash Builder support > could have the same name as the Project, but the other package that > supports other Flex IDEs could still be called FlexJS. > > This is why I proposed what I did last night: > -Project name: Royale > -Product name for folks who don't know Flex: Royale > -Product name for folks who do know Flex: FlexJS > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > On 9/14/17, 3:59 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" > <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In my view, the biggest reason for a fork is to get away from the name > >Flex. > > > >In terms of familiarity, show a few lines of MXML code to current Flex > >developers, they will immediately recognize it. > > > >The same way that I recognize JQuery if I see the $ symbol or AngularJS > >when I see ng-something. > > > >My point is, if we can have a big snippet of MXML on our home page, SEO > >for > >flex, flejs, actionscript, mxml, etc, we should be able to cover existing > >Flex users. > > > >For getting new users, IMHO, we must must get rid of the word Flex. Once > >someone comes in based on curiosity, we need to ensure that they like what > >they see, namely ease of setup, ease of use, features support, etc. > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > >On Sep 14, 2017 3:36 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Unless there are objections, I propose we continue the vote for the > >> project name and we can have a separate discussion once the new project > >>is > >> formed on what to name the product. > >> > >> I don’t think we should rush into the decision on the product, but the > >> project name is more time critical and has less marketing impact. > >> > >> Does that sound like a plan? > >> > >> Harbs > >> > >> > On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Piotr Zarzycki > >><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Guys, > >> > > >> > Reading Justin's thoughts we should really consider all of that. We > >>can > >> > loose a lot of already gathered attention even if Carlos will put > >>effort > >> > for new brand. > >> > > >> > +1 for having Product Name as FlexJS. That would be the bridge which > >>can > >> > hold us. > >> > > >> > Piotr > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 23:31 Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >> If the project name were to be "Apache Royale" and produced FlexJS, > >>and > >> >> the Apache Royale web page/wiki referenced FlexJS and made it > >>available > >> >> for Google searches, then anyone who was interested in or heard about > >> >> FlexJS and searched for "FlexJS" (or "Flex" or "Adobe Flex" or > >>"Apache > >> >> Flex" or "ActionScript Flex" or <etc>), they should get a link to > >>Apache > >> >> Royale in their search results. The blurb that accompanies the search > >> >> result should mention FlexJS. I think that would be enough to pique > >> >> interest and get a click. > >> >> > >> >> Substitute "Royale" for whatever name you'd like the project to be > >> called. > >> >> > >> >> ‹peter > >> >> > >> >> On 9/14/17, 5:16 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> It¹s great to have another perspective on this. > >> >>> > >> >>> Some of these issues can be addressed by SEO. > >> >>> > >> >>> It could be that we should be careful about changing names, and / or > >> >>> timing of changing names. > >> >>> > >> >>> Alex does make a good point that the project name does not need to > >>be > >> the > >> >>> same as the product name. It might make sense to keep the product as > >> >>> FlexJS for now at least and just pick a different project name. The > >> >>> product name is easier to change than the project name and a project > >> can > >> >>> have more than one product. > >> >>> > >> >>> If I would pick a reference to a product which did a major > >>rebranding > >> to > >> >>> drop associations to old technology it would be Xojo. I¹m not sure > >>how > >> >>> many here are familiar with it, but it used to be call REALBasic. A > >>few > >> >>> years back they rebranded as Xojo. I don¹t think it made much of a > >> >>> difference to the folks using it. I have no idea if it helped them > >>or > >> not. > >> >>> > >> >>> Harbs > >> >>> > >> >>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Justin M. Hill <jus...@prominic.net> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi everyone, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am not someone with an official vote, but I wanted to express my > >> >>>> concern > >> >>>> about ditching the FlexJS name. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The largest possible market for adoption of a new "javascript" > >> solution > >> >>>> is > >> >>>> to go after those who have stuck with Flex. There are FAR too > >>many > >> >>>> javascript solutions on the market right now. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> If the vote is to change the name, this will: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- confuse the people who have been patiently waiting for FlexJS to > >> get > >> >>>> to > >> >>>> 1.0 so they can dive in. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- get lost in the noise of all of the other far more well > >>popularized > >> >>>> javascript frameworks like Angular, React, etc. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- lose the feeling, however small it may be, that those who came > >>from > >> >>>> the > >> >>>> Flex background can expect to have some of their knowledge > >>recycled. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> These are 3 critical aspects in terms of raising awareness and > >>having > >> a > >> >>>> potentially devoted following of one technology (Flex) star to > >> >>>> transition > >> >>>> and champion to a new one (FlexJS). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> If we lose that, then we effectively have to target against ALL > >> >>>> javascript > >> >>>> frameworks, most notably ones that are heavily entrenched already > >>and > >> >>>> supported by giant company resources like Google and Facebook. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am strongly opposed to a name change. I think this would be a > >>huge > >> >>>> mistake. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On top of that, picking a new name and gaining awareness of it is > >> HARD. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It should be reason enough for the Apache powers-that-be to > >>approve a > >> >>>> project change to avoid being stuck with a huge legacy Flex bugbase > >> that > >> >>>> Adobe donated, and instead start fresh with our 1.0 name. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> If that cannot be achieved, then at a bare minimum we should seek > >>to > >> >>>> keep > >> >>>> the name FlexJS. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Regarding targeting something other than Javascript -- like SWF or > >>AIR > >> >>>> -- I > >> >>>> realize the debug aspect benefits are important, but all this is > >>going > >> >>>> to > >> >>>> do is confuse people. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I have read about HaXe a dozen times, and I never understand what > >>it > >> >>>> does > >> >>>> because apparently it does too much. A swiss army knife is a lot > >> more > >> >>>> confusing to use then a fixed head screwdriver. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Please, we have spent SO much time trying to get to 1.0 -- lets get > >> >>>> FOCUSED > >> >>>> on delivering what everyone outside of the community of active > >> >>>> participants > >> >>>> here has been waiting on, which is a future direction for their > >>Flex > >> >>>> efforts. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thank you, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Justin Hill > >> >>>> > >> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> http%3A%2F%2FProminic > >> >> . > >> >>>> NET&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce3d4e33b77f840be8d2b08d4fbb5 > >> d605%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 > >> >>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636410205784877857&sdata= > >> cw5LAiH6bOvULqdsdx4NL > >> >>>> GWNUawI58dy%2F4fqTI5aCaM%3D&reserved=0 | Skype: JustinProminic > >> >>>> > >> >>>> My Apache Flex community contribution is working on the open > >> >>>> source Moonshine-IDE.com for FlexJS. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
