If refactoring the current SDK is so much work, yes starting from
scratch is the best option for future.
"we could think in start some refactor but that would be mainly
'maintenance mode'"
What would be the main objective of such refactoring then? Performances?
Le 22/10/2012 12:17, Carlos Rovira a écrit :
I'm with Alex that Flex actual codebase is very old. It relys on
things set up on Flash Professional 2004 (maybe even Flash MX). Then
Flex 1.x get that legacy, and then, again Flex 2.x to 4.x
Many of us would want to see changes inside the actual code base to
let our systems, applications and products evolve and not get
obsolete, but maybe that road is very painful since involves many
man/hours that maybe we don't have.
So as I put in other thread, we could think in start some refactor but
that would be mainly "maintenance mode" and not get all the
possibilities that we could get going a *new from scratch route".
Maintenance is needed, and the I assume we continue having AVM2 in
Flash Player as we continue to have AVM1 nowadays. So our legacy apps
will continue to live there. But we should start to think in the
future and that requires apply all what we know to a new framework.
2012/10/22 sébastien Paturel <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com>:
Sorry for sharing my frustration, but i'm really trying to be constructive
in the sens that i'm trying to get clear informations of the state of the
framework, regarding, a multi target future.
I was not talking about Adobe here, i was saying that, in the context of
Alex talking about starting a new framework from scratch.
I am not complaining about how the things are today, but about the lack of
visibility of what is possible, and what is not for the future, about what
is the state of discusison among commiters about such a subject etc.
"discussing (on various threads and other media, like conferences) that best
approach to do that."
I'm happy to know that there are active discussions about it. But i'm sorry,
i try to follow the ML since a few month, and i did not saw much about such
deep discussions regarding a mutli target future.
If it was the case, i would not be frustated (even if no definitive answer
has been found yet)
Instead i see other frustrated readers talking about "Apache model killing
the project", "ghost town", "need of a roadmap"...
Can you please give us a feedback of those conferences? Can you just give a
quick update of the state of discussions and thoughts? and do you have any
advise to help us keep track of those discussions, if the ML is not the
right place?
For now, to be constructive, i'm trying to understand:
- What is the current vision of commiters regarding the future of flex, and
the multi target possibilities? Thanks a lot to Alex to have shared a
detailed explaination of his current toughts. I'd also love to see commiters
answer to the thread "What is the essence of Flex".
- What does it imply for flex as a mobile multi target SDK if it does not
run on next Adobe runtime in the short term? (it depends on Adobe's plan
regarding AIR runtime in fact)
- What is the amount of work required to get flex run on starling? Is it
manageable task (for major update) or does it imply big rewrite of SDK?
- What is the list of dependancies that tie the SDk to flash platform?
- Is there a realistic future for actual flex in middle term to be still
multi target, or is it such a mess that starting from scratch is the only
realistic way?
...
Le 22/10/2012 08:46, Erik de Bruin a écrit :
I feel that everything is going back in time. We're not talking about
abandoning an old technology, to get new modern and better one, we're
talking about abandoning a very efficient technology, with no alternative
with the same level of possibilities.
I can understand your frustration, but you're not talking to Adobe on
this list, you're talking to the contributors to Apache Flex. We
trying to find a way to take the framework forward and are discussing
(on various threads and other media, like conferences) that best
approach to do that.
Being constructive helps. Complaining that things are the way they are
doesn't. Please be constructive.
EdB
