Message-
From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Rovira
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:49 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi,
seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the
So, the argument again becomes one tool for all jobs...
Perhaps there are a multitude of MVC approaches because they each have their
specialty and one should choose the solution based on the problem, not by
precognition.
Mike
2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr
> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framew
I deeply disagree to that statement. There is not an unique valid way to
approach a development and having so many frameworks sums to make better
the FLEX ecosystem.
2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr
> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I
On 6/3/13 6:49 PM, "Jeffry Houser" wrote:
>
>On 6/3/2013 7:44 PM, Lee Burrows wrote:
>>
>> "while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't
>> clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That
>> would still be true if the projects were part of Apache
On 6/3/2013 7:44 PM, Lee Burrows wrote:
"while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't
clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That
would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and
Apache is not an historical archive.
"in a
With the greatest of respect, I have to disagree - i dont think it is
reasonable to accept donations for the reasons you suggest.
"while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't
clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That
would still be true if
Apache is about communities and open source software. Creating new
communities and projects is quite a bit of work, having just gone through
it for Flex. There are some popular libraries like Swiz, Parsley,
FlexUnit, TLF, and more that, while they could continue to exist in GitHub
or Google Code,
I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is
even occuring.
This project is called "Apache Flex" after all, so why are other
projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end?
Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects
Send an email to flex-unsubscr...@flex.apache.org
Sad to see you go :-( Can you maybe tell us why you are leaving?
EdB
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Marcelo Fabricio de Mello
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> How can i unsubscribe this list !?
> tks,
>
> Marcelo
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez
>
>
Hi guys,
How can i unsubscribe this list !?
tks,
Marcelo
2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez
> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project
@Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and
forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex
has
> Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box
IMHO no, that is not needed, because Flex can be used to create an
MVC/MVVC/MVP/you-name-it architecture out of the box without any framework.
And wouldn't that be like integrating Spring into Java?
> Having that would bring more stability to th
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:22 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
Having t
Sebastian, you should open a new thread :)
On 3 June 2013 17:22, Sebastian Mohr wrote:
> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex m
IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
information can be found here [1].
[1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/Whats
Thanks Carlos.
When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
close the vote.
@Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without
a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
officially closed.
Thanks again,
-Alex
On 6/2/13 2:
I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
and I open a new one just now.
2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin
> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> discussed and the resulting cons
Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
(or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
want to add/amend in the new vote.
Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being dona
My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I
guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as
-1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the
proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
The amount of discu
On 6/1/13 7:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> What steps are required from the author to make the donation?
>Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote
>would also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would
>allow one framework and not the ot
Hi,
> What steps are required from the author to make the donation?
Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote would
also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would allow one
framework and not the other.
> Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apac
What steps are required from the author to make the donation? Since he
has moved on to other things, I'd like to bother him as less as possible.
Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apache License 2.0. The framework
consists of several libraries which can be found here
https://github.com/spicefact
Right! why not? :)
I don't know too much about parsely but seems it's in the same state that
Swiz. If AOP efforts progress all frameworks like swiz and parsley could
benefit from the hooks in the compiler to implement it and will need people
behind it to make this evolution.
I think the only req
Hi Om,
I can make the blog post, but we should wait until Chris Scott write the
email with his intention of donation. Then we can make the official blog
post to make the announcement to the world. And we will put special wording
in make clear that this donation should not be seen as giving any spe
My bad for not voting clearly.
If you two are confident that we can make a release of Swiz in a reasonable
timeframe, I am cool with it.
It would bode well for us if we make a blog post making it clear that we
support all other frameworks as well. Can someone come up with such a post
and put it
It certainly could, in my opinion. I think these frameworks enhance
Flex and therefor enhance the Apache Flex project. I think there is
synergy to be had, both for 'users' and contributors.
EdB
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM, dude wrote:
> So Parsley could find a new home here as well?
>
> Am
So Parsley could find a new home here as well?
Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin:
> The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
> framework if/when those are donated as well.
>
> The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
> endorsed as the one
Sorry Om,
your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so
the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express
something but not state a final vote.
Regarding the "contrib" folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the
Swiz case, since in my case we
You hid your vote well... you did +1 and -1 in two short sentences.
Re-reading helped a bit, but - at least for non-native speakers - it
was very ambivalent.
I think most of your concerns have been addressed in one way or
another, or will (must) be addressed during the coming process of
donation.
I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
addressed.
If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder
and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo?
Thanks,
Om
On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
wrote:
really looking forward about this, i have being missing swiz for mobile app
development lot so once the donation took place hope there will be new
development towards swiz mobile application support
Thanks
Sumudu
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Carlos Rovira <
carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wro
Ok Erik,
I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain
swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred m
The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
framework if/when those are donated as well.
The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any f
A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
have a MVC approach into the SDK.
My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather
than force you on our perspective way.
For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
cod
I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
negative vote.
Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
has to ju
The vote was open for more than 72 hours. I'm closing it.
Here are results:
+1 (binding)
Erik de Bruin
Greg Reddin
Justin Mclean
Fréderic Thomas
-1 (binding)
Igor Costa (no explanation)
Jeff Tapper (he stated "unless there are assurances that this will not be
part of the
main branch, but inste
Hi,
here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who
open the vote)
2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira
> Hi,
>
> seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
> since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
> explanation or comment
Hi,
seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting
vote mail.
Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could
For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of
specifics in the proposal.
Here are the things that are bothering me:
1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate
this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to
stay i
I was thinking that by being more explicit and proposing a "contrib" repo
that is intended as a warehouse for low-activity items it would help
resolve some of these misunderstandings. FlexUnit and the installer in
utilities are still more active, IMO.
I'm just concerned about wrapping up the vote
If swiz is donated and end up under the utilities, how would it differ from
FlexUnit donation? Why would be swiz assumed as "the best" or "supported"
framework and not FlexUnit? I would welcome any other lib, IoC or not to
Apache Flex contrib, if it would make easier to the community to keep it
ali
Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if
that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the
best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated
otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those
frameworks in Apache Flex)
The problem is that there are a few contributors that never got their
improvements / bug fixes merged to the project so anyone using swiz is
missing those.
On 31 May 2013 17:56, Jeffry Houser wrote:
>
> The thing I don't fully understand is this:
>
> Swiz is already licensed under the Apache
For me, I think the main advantage for both projects is: exposure.
EdB
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jeffry Houser wrote:
>
> The thing I don't fully understand is this:
>
> Swiz is already licensed under the Apache License (
> https://github.com/swiz/swiz-framework/blob/develop/LICENSE )
The thing I don't fully understand is this:
Swiz is already licensed under the Apache License (
https://github.com/swiz/swiz-framework/blob/develop/LICENSE ). If people
want to contribute, use, or modify then what is stopping them?
How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex
The -1 people (3, of whom 2 have a binding vote) have declined to
respond to repeated requests for clarification (by both Justin and
me). Their previous comments seem to indicate they don't want Swiz to
become part of the SDK. The VOTE proposal clearly states:
"This will be a project like flexunit
Alex, even if AOP would be added at compiling time, it would be up to the
frameworks to leverage it, swiz or other.
Regarding -1 votes, I think 2 of them will be solved if swiz is under the
utilities and not making it as part of the Flex SDK.
The last -1, no reason has been given so Igor will have
I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're
seeing.
Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after
some discussing with those voting -1?
I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo.
I think the new proposal should sta
48 matches
Mail list logo
