My issue with this whole issue is choice. Even if I select "Spark only" its loads the MX library core and Spark components which are based on mx.core.UIComponent. I love the desire for backward compatibility but GIVE ME A CHOICE to cut the mx framework loose. Its still loads 6 RSL with its loading time which people use as the excuse to dump Flex. Unless this is FIXED, this framework does not have a snowball chance of Hell of every be successful. Suggestion: Based Spark classes on a SPARK base framework class and not mx.core.UIComponent with its 14 thousand lines of code. Over engineered much? I already building up my own Spark custom framework rather than the one from Flex 4.6. I basically getting components only as 1/3 as big and running nice and fast. Although I like the Flex framework I like to use less functionality and get smaller components than the option of loading two frameworks
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Michael A. Labriola < labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > > In Conclusion in my opinion: > > Spark should be the base for all components from now on. > > MX should die mainly because we cant use it for Mobile and it is not > > based on Spark (that makes the SDK more hard to maintain). > > MX can't die. It is still used by many more projects than Spark. It will > need to be maintained for the foreseeable future > > > A new components list based on Spark should replace MX for easy and > > simple skinning use cases. > > I think it's fine to have a rich set of skins that you can use if you want > all of those styling attributes. I would hate to penalize every project > though. It still seems to me that, like HGroup and VGroup, we can extend > all of these classes and put them in a library... perhaps SparkSimple. It's > nothing but composed versions of the other classes with a more full > featured skin and additional style declarations. To me that would be the > way to solve both issue. > >
