Regarding media, it's important to note that most technology decisions are driven (at least in part) by someone who's aware of what's going on in that tech space--even in a small company. That's obvious, I know, but if Apache Flex is a great product, the technology "deciders" will understand that. Their advocacy will be much more valuable than some external, concerted media effort. (Consider Apache Web Server...)
Let's just make a great product. Cheers, sD 2012/1/10 Csomák Gábor <csom...@gmail.com> > no i don't believe. I love Flex :) but lots of my connections have the > problem, that the costumers want html5, but it would be much better and > useful in flash. > like at join.me , we are experimenting with html5, but it is so slow. > while > flash works awesome. > customers pay, and they are stupid, they believe in media. > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Quentin Le Hénaff <lek...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Flash, in order to die, HTML5 Canvas should live and be performant ; > which > > is not what I see... BTW, do you really believe the Media ;) ? > > > > I strongly agree with Rui ; in a way, every technology relies on another > > technology that has its own drawbacks. Let's focus on stuff. > > With a strong argumentation, we could ask or force Adobe to do something > > about the FP or even create a fork on the project if really necessary, > but > > we are not here now ; let's keep it simple for the beginning > > > > 2012/1/10 Csomák Gábor <csom...@gmail.com> > > > > > sorry for starting a flame war. i just meant, that if flash really dies > > > (what is the purpose of the media), flex also. recreating it in > > javascript > > > is not an option. > > > i meant we need to show, that there is place for both flash and html5. > > the > > > two things is completely different. html5 has a canvas tag. so what? > > flash > > > has a webview component. > > > but if the people hear every day that flash is dead, they won't pay > for a > > > flash ria, even if it would be faster, better, cheaper. please don't > > take > > > it as an offense, i'm not fighting, it was my toughs. I'm young, so i > can > > > be wrong :) > > > > > > peace. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Raju Bitter < > rajubit...@googlemail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > This project should not, in my opinion, focus on the actual runtime > > > > except for the very specific cases > > > > > were it is absolutely necessary. I say that we deal with issues > > > > regarding runtime and language when > > > > > they appear letting the community decide how to best deal with > them. > > > > Don't really agree with you here. Even Adobe started investigating > > > > JavaScript generation out of ActionScript code. If the creator of > > > > Flex, ActionScript and Flash investigate cross-compilation of > > > > ActionScript to JavaScript, why should Apache Flex ignore that > > > > approach? > > > > > > > > I see one of the chances of an Apache Flex versus Adobe Flex that the > > > > community can drive the project into a direction, where an HTML5 > based > > > > runtime for Flex will be created. If you'd rather see that as a > > > > separate project next to Flex (e.g. Apache Falcon), that's of course > > > > an option. > > > > > > > > Is there any legally binding agreement between Apache Flex and Adobe > > > > that the company will always provide a runtime environment for Flash > > > > for the next 3-5 years? If not, Adobe can at any time pull the plug > on > > > > - let's say - desktop browser Flash Player, and only offer AIR/mobile > > > > App generation out of ActionScript. > > > > > > > > Just my thoughts, I'm aware of the fact that quite a few people will > > not > > > > agree. > > > > > > > > - Raju > > > > > > > > > >
