Again it brings me back to the old thread "what is the essence of flex"
What is it for you?
For me it's a framework for RIA, with descriptive language for UI,
giving the possibility to have one code base and many platform targets.
And flex 1 was that.
but to be an efficient developement framework it had to be ported to an
OOP language. and to be multi platform it was ported to desktop and to
mobile devices with AIR. But it was only enhancements not a change of
the essence of it. Thats why it was still named flex.
It could even be written in javascript and using phoneGap for multi
platform, it would still be flex, even if it would be a far less
efficient framework.
"Otherwise it was a complete mess"
When i read how Alex is talking about flex 4 architecture it seems to
still be the case. And thats why we are talking about a complete rewrite
from scratch.
Its interresting to read again the presentation of Apache flex on the
website:
http://incubator.apache.org/flex/
The first part is exactly what i'm thinking about flex and could be the
answer about the essence of flex:
"Apache Flex® is a highly productive, open source application framework
for building and maintaining expressive web applications that deploy
consistently on all major browsers, desktops and devices (including
smartphones, tablets and tv)."
The second part is more details about the current version of flex and
what you can expect of it right now:
"It provides a modern, standards-based language and programming model
that supports common design patterns suitable for developers from many
backgrounds. Flex applications can be deployed to the ubiquitous Adobe®
Flash® Player in the browser, Adobe® AIR^(TM) on desktop and mobile or
to native Android^(TM), IOS^(TM), QNX®, Windows® or Mac® applications."
Its interesting to see that it does not say that its AS3 !
and i think we will all agree that the Adobe's runtime dependency is not
or should not be part of the essence of flex.
Le 15/11/2012 21:54, Nicholas Kwiatkowski a écrit :
No. It was not.
If you've ever had the pleasure of using Flex 1.0 or 1.5, well... yeah.
They offered the same UI, but that's it. Otherwise it was a complete mess.
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM, sébastien Paturel
<sebpatu.f...@gmail.com>wrote:
So it means that Flex in AS2 was not flex?
Le 15/11/2012 20:50, Alex Harui a écrit :
On 11/15/12 11:44 AM, "sébastien Paturel" <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you thing that using AS4 is the better choice?
It brings me back to the thread (what is the essence of Flex?) In my
opinion, flex is not tight to actionscript.
IMO, Flex is AS3. My assumption is that there are large bodies of AS
business logic that folks are not wanting to port to something else. Of
course, that assumption could be incorrect.
