Cairngorm is an IoC framework now... where's the link to that download? ;-)
Seriously though - more choices does not mean better. More choices just means more choices. The difference between the Cairngorm of yesterday and Signals of today is maturity. The domain / problems that people were experiencing with Flex 2.x were new... everyone was clamoring for a solution to make enterprise development easier. Today... we've been down that path for four something + years now. Most of the problems have been hammered out pretty well. It's time to stabilize, standardize, and settle-in. -- Rick Winscot On Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Iwo Banaś wrote: > On 16 January 2012 22:19, Michel Boudreau <michelboudr...@gmail.com > (mailto:michelboudr...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > I don't really see the reason to have Signals added to Flex, especially if > > it's already possible to just add it as a separate library. > > > > > I totally agree. Not that I don't like Signals but I like having choice. > Rather than deciding which libraries should be merged to the framework > I'd concentrate on ensuring that it's easy to develop competing > libraries which stimulates progress. > The good example of this healthy competition is current Flex IoC > frameworks landscape. Isn't it nicer than a single "official" > Cairngorm framework recommended by Adobe few years ago? > > Cheers, > Iwo > >
