I read the original discussion very carefully... maybe I missed something?
It seemed to me that most of the comments were logistical, aesthetic, and posturing in nature. I don't recall anyone taking the issue to people like Matt C., Deepa S., etc for consideration. Minimally, this should be taken up with the original architects to ensure that we are taking the 'right' step forward. So... this time around, I'm asking the PPMC to consider this from an architectural perspective; to seek the advice of the original architects and to evaluate the architectural opportunity cost ( pros / cons ) of making a namespace change at this point. I've had some very unsavory experience with RSLs and how Flash _cannot_ discriminate clearly between two classes present in bytecode (whichever loads first is used from that point on). The only way to guarantee that you are executing the intended bytecode is to make sure that potential conflicts are not and cannot be loaded. 'Backward compatibility' is a two-edged sword... -- Rick Winscot On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote: > Quoting Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com > (mailto:omarg.develo...@gmail.com)>: > > > I have some pretty mixed feelings on this subject, I had just brought it up > > a few threads ago after committing my first code into the whiteboard area. > > > > On the one hand we need to think about legacy code and having to update so > > many projects that use the current namespaces. This alone makes me want to > > NOT rename all of the current namespaces. I also like the short length of > > the current namespace since it starts with simply "spark...". > > > > At the same time I feel like moving the namespace to "org.apache.flex..." > > would be a bold statement that would let the rest of the development world > > that does not follow what is happening around Flex as closely know that the > > project is officially in the hands of The ASF and out of Adobe's. I've also > > thought that perhaps doing such a move would be best for Flex.next, as > > opposed to the current 4.x branch. > > > > I think that if it were up to me and I had the final say I'd probably vote > > for keeping the current namespace in the 4.x branch and moving the > > namespace in the future for Flex.next. > > > > -omar > > I agree Omar, I would also add that anything that is quite new could > use the org.apache.flex which would also be a bold preliminary > statement for those getting into the whiteboard. There would be NO > DOUBT where this new code is coming from. > > Also, I know this is going to be debated to death in the future and > some will say oh, the org.apache is going to add bytes to the SWF, oh > I can't type that much, you get this hint. > > So it will be interesting where this one ends up. Although I would > love to at least ask a lot of the whiteboard contributors to think > about using the org.apache in there experiments so any of the code in > the whiteboard floating around at least has a tag back to our project. > > Mike
