I think I'm able to get your point after watching these slides and mixing
it together with what you mentioned earlier on in another thread.
So instead of going through direct UI AS3->{MyOutputTargetOfChioce}
translation we just concentrate our efforts in the business logic code
translation AS3->{MyOutputTargetOfChioce}.
The views on the other hand are implemented natively in the language of
choice, being it AS3, JS or whatever.
Finally MXML comes to rescue giving us the power of componetization and
view declaration.
This way we can implement same set of components for different output
targets but declare them in the same way.
FalconJS will take care of the rest.Am I right? or did I make my own movie... Anyway, I see maaaaany advantages here. Wow, I love it. This is actually the essence of Flex taken to the next level :) Well, I see Haxe fitting here as well. Actually we could plug many packaging tools in the FlaconJS "output port". Can't wait to see more! Cheers! On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> In the meantime, make sure you look at the slide deck from Michael > >> Labriola¹s 360Min presentation on how he is developing apps for HTML. > I¹m > >> sure he¹ll reply with the link > > > > Is the slidedeck already pulished somewhere? > > > > http://www.slideshare.net/michael.labriola/randori-design-goals-and-justific > ation > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
