It seems obvious to me. For Flex to remain meaningful and relevant to me going forward it should retain all its good parts (MXML, UI Components and libs) and be able to target as many devices as possible. In my mind that means targeting:
1. First priority target ASNext and the new AVM, by reworking the SDK to work with Stage3D. 2. Second priority target HTML5. I think the next AVM being focused on gaming may be a good thing for Flex, since a lot of the cinematic UI's we like to use Flex (in combination with Flash) for could benefit significantly. (assuming a good UI framework exists) I say second priority for #2 because I think there is a more of a unique proposition value for Flex from #1 than #2. There are already plenty of viable HTML5 frameworks already in the market. There isn't much of a unique proposition in using Flex for new HTM5 based projects, given TypeScript and Dart etc... - superabe On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM, sébastien Paturel <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks Gordon for asking about the nature of Flex. > Flex is a RIA sdk and not a gaming SDK, ok thats quite obvious. > > But flex must be multiscreen ! and if flex don't run on all screen it has > no future! > What has put Flex in a difficult position last month is the fact that > HTML5 could not be targetted! > What has kept Flex alive is to be able to create apps for iOS and Android > with the same mature framework. > And what can give a bright future to Flex is to be able to target as much > screens as possible, again, including HTML5. > > So lets define a multiscreen strategy here! > > Today: > Flex is multiscreen because it runs on Adobe's Flashplayer and AIR. > One of its big strenght is to be able to create apps for Desktops > (starting from flash player 10 which has unbeatable ubiquity thanks to the > monopoly of flash player on the video streaming area), smartphones and > tablets, including iOs AND android. > but it can't run on HTML5. Its not a big deal yet because HTML5 is not > mature enough (performances) and the user usage is not much on the webapp > area yet, so native apps is the place to be for now. > It can't target linux well since AIR runtime will not target it anymore, > and flash player is not quite stable. Its sad but its not big deal as an > economic point of view, as theres not much users on it. > Thats what makes Flex still a rationnaly good solution nowadays, even in > an HTML5 hype world. > > Tomorrow: > If there is new mobile hardwares smartphones and tablets, Adobe will > probably target it with its runtimes, but according to its new strategic > shift it will be with the new gaming runtime only! > So flex won't run on those new hardwares even being based on Adobes > runtimes, if we do not port the framework to this new runtime architecture! > Am i wrong? > It would kill Flex for mobile, as a viable commercial solution. > So if the port to new Adobe runtime is a manageable amount of work (threw > starling2D), i think we should do it for this reason. > If we need to change architecture of flex sdk for it (more modularity and > break the UIComponent as everyone wants to), lets start with it anyway. > In that case Flex would still rely on Adobes runtimes for multiscreen, but > being inline with the new Adobe strategic shift so it would give the > project more time to be able to run on Adobe's free runtimes. > And being based on a stage3D renderer, would make the future shift to > openGLES more easy. Am i wrong? > > Near future: > IMO the goal is that: > Flex target openGLES and native runtimes of all mobile hardwares. My > personnal dream is to be able to target all screens including smart TVs and > gaming consoles (but for RIA apps dev) > Flex target HTML5 which has become mature and viable for serious RIA. > > In conclusion, > The first priority for flex IMO is to stay multiscreen. > targetting HTML5 is big priority but in a long term. > targetting new coming mobile hardwares is big priority in short term! > > The final questions are: > is it really a more rapid solution to target Next Adobe's runtime as a > first step before being able to target any new mobile native runtimes > (threw openGLES directly) or not? > And what we need to change first in the framework to make it possible? > Do flex need a language port to stay multiscreen? stay with AS3? AS4? > Dart? Haxe? etc. > > I'm eager to read your thoughts and arguments, pro and against. > Thanks > > > Le 19/10/2012 01:28, Gordon Smith a écrit : > >> Yes, the community has to figure out what the essence of Flex really is. >> To me, it's an rapid-development application framework, the combination of >> a procedural language with a declarative language, and a widely-deployed >> runtime that can support RIAs. The runtime of the future for RIAs seems to >> be native code for mobile devices and HTML/Javascript for browser apps. The >> best procedural language is anything that can be compiled to these >> runtimes. MXML is a perfectly good declarative language for UIs. >> >> - Gordon >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael A. Labriola >> [mailto:labriola@**digitalprimates.net<labri...@digitalprimates.net> >> ] >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:07 PM >> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: ASC 2.0 and Falcon >> >> PS I don't think Apache Flex needs to stand for what Flex is today >>> though, and this is where innovation in the future needs to happen in this >>> project. >>> >> +65535 >> > >
