These are just off the top of my head. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:49 AM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone needs to create a FAQ that points to these discussions. > > 1) Will the next version of Flex output to HTML5 > Probably not. > > Current roadblocks: > • HTML5 does not support the full API used by Flex. Solutions suggested > include creating an alternative version of the SDK without them. > • Roadblock 2 > • Roadblock 3 (added as they come up) > > Conclusion: > It is under investigation and will be pursued after Falcon / FalconJS > compiler is committed to the repository. Limitations will have to be > explored and listed. Discussions [1] [2] > > 2) What's going to be in the next version of Flex? > People are working on component parity of Spark components to mx > components, optimizing base classes like UIComponent, removing > dependencies, etc (add yours here). What actually is in the next release is > ultimately based on... Discussions [1] > > > 3) How do I submit a patch? > ... > > 4) How do I submit a component? > ... > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:16 AM, James Roland Cabresos < > j.cabre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good to know! Was the discussion of that approach available here? >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: James Roland Cabresos [mailto:j.cabre...@gmail.com] >> > > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:16 PM >> > > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org; f...@rduartes.net >> > > Subject: Re: Apache Flex suggestion - dumping SWF support in favor of >> > > HTML5 - listen to Steve >> > > >> > > Just a suggestion, If the current Flex version can't be entirely >> ported >> > > or >> > > be made compatible to FalconJS or any other AS3 to JS compiler because >> > > of >> > > the limitations, perhaps we could just create a separate version of >> > > Flex >> > > where it is optimized for these compilers. >> > Such an approach has already been discussed. >> > >> > > This way we may have >> > > something >> > > that is working in less than 6 months I guess. >> > I think it will much longer than 6 months. >> > >> > >
