Thank you - clarifies a lot. Maybe a compromise is to simply just use <a:component> for every new component from Apache until Adobe actually adopts it into the main fork?
My vote on this, put it up for vote now, and move on to more important issues. We can revisit later. Duane ---------------- President/COO Überity Technology Corporation Adobe LiveCycle ES & Enterprise Specialist Blog | http://technoracle.blogspot.com Twitter | @Uberity @duanechaos On 12-03-16 9:13 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> This is assuming that someone would use both Adobe and Apache spark >> components >Which is very likely as initially the apache set of components are going >to be small in number and would be used with other spark or mx components. > >> It's 4 extra lines of code. Why is this a bad situation? >It not bad as such. I just thought it would be nice not to have to >specify those lines of code over again in multiple files in a single >project. It something that bugs me a little. > >> What is "a" for? An Apache version of FX? Sorry to be naïve. >New apache components. Neither fx or mx nor sparc. Doesn't have to be "a" >as you can name name spaces anything, "as" and "asf" have also been >suggested. > >Previous discussion around name spaces concluded to put all new >components into an name space while they can be worked on before decided >if they should go into the spark or mx space or a new name space. > >It has been decided that having real URLs in as the namespace is a good >idea. > >It hasn't been decided if we should just have a apache namespace and a >temporary name space or just use a single namespace for both. ie >components will stay in the apache namespace if they don't fit in with >spark or mx once it been decided they are good enough. > >Was also suggested that we have a namespace for incubation and for after >we graduate (so the URLs are correct and point somewhere real). > >It's also suggested an apache mx name space and spark name space but >there seems a little resistance to that. > >Hopefully I've got all that correct. > >Thanks, >Justin
