On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:52, Piotr Kawiak wrote:
> On a side note: why did you choose to implement your own MVC
> framework while there is at least several of them on the web free of
> charge, tested, and documented?
>
We have started it 3-4 years ago. There was just a few, the ones that
exist
e architectural
framework war ;-)
hth
dan
From: Charles Monteiro
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, 2 March 2012, 14:38
Subject: Re: [OT] Thoughts on a Apache Flex MVC Framework
There's a difference between a plugin to a framework and &qu
There's a difference between a plugin to a framework and "goodies" / "gem"
like repository. The difference is that a "goodies" repository depends on
the its "universe" typically that being a language and if done well its
declared dependencies to other entities. A plugin is a direct extension to
a f
There's a difference between a plugin to a framework and "goodies" / "gem"
like repository. The difference is that a "goodies" repository depends on
the its "universe" typically that being a language and if done well its
declared dependencies to other entities. A plugin is a direct extension to
a f
> Overly complicated? Come on More simple and organized in a way that
> everyone comprehends ?
I don't know your framework but I have experience with several
intrusive frameworks that brutally impose MVC (PureMVC, Aconcagua) and
I really find them too restrictive. I don't like boilerplate code
For know we will stick to the early idea of creating a brand to it, but
that will take some more time since we need to build some minimal stuff
around it... just putting the code opensource without a minimal
documentation, samples and instruction will lead nowhere.
I also think it's not the right
W dniu 2012-03-02 09:32, James Ong pisze:
True, I would find MVC is overly complicated to learn as a beginner
when MVVM like KnockOut JS or WPF is more easier to manage and easy to
understand.
I'm not sure if anyone should develop a framework using MVVM pattern?
I think that some of already exi
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:32, James Ong wrote:
> True, I would find MVC is overly complicated to learn as a beginner
> when MVVM like KnockOut JS or WPF is more easier to manage and easy to
> understand.
>
> I'm not sure if anyone should develop a framework using MVVM pattern?
>
Overly complicat
True, I would find MVC is overly complicated to learn as a beginner
when MVVM like KnockOut JS or WPF is more easier to manage and easy to
understand.
I'm not sure if anyone should develop a framework using MVVM pattern?
Ouch. Flex is already a bit bloated. Why would we need to have it
connected with some MVC framework in ANY way? I had no issues with
'integrating' Flex with PureMVC or Aconcagua (oohh I HATE that
name!!!) and one custom built framework! Moreover, developing more and
more with Flex I came to a concl
Great... good discussion
I don't think a mvc framework should go in the core framework of flex... It
doesn't make sense I agree on that 100%
The idea of extensions sound great to me, but I don't have a lot of
experience with this idea on an opensource project to suggest a model that
would
count me in!
Arnoud
On 01-03-2012, at 13:46, Rafael Santos wrote:
> I would like to hear from everyone about this
>
> I have being developing a MVC Framework for Flex for the last 3-4 years
> now. The framework is based on Fake Framework that is on Google Code.
>
> Since last year we wante
If you take a look on almost all MVC frameworks (pureMVC, robotlegs) are
not only for Flex. These frameworks can also be used for AS3 and
implemented in Flash, which is not related at all with Apache Flex.
And I agree with Igor, the decision of what MVC framework to use depends on
the developers in
I always believe that an MVC approach into Flex SDK will succumb the
freedom of choice by many developers out there.
I suggestion is to adopt a mvc aware that can be fit in any other MVC out
there.
The suggestion of Ruby Gems model I totally disagree, because as in Ruby
Gems doesn't have access
On 1 March 2012 17:13, andrei apostolache wrote:
> And I don't see why I will need a MVC framework directly implemented in
> Flex SDK,
>
That's not I said, it's an extension so the core would never have
dependencies on extensions, otherwise they aren't extensions anymore.
> Each project should
On 3/1/12 9:11 AM, "Jarosław Szczepankiewicz"
wrote:
> what's the purpose? sharing mailing lists? sharing repository? sharing
> documentation? apart from that why framework Parsley, not Matte or
> something else? How this will affect releasing new edition of flex
> sdk? Will we wait with relea
On 3/1/12 8:59 AM, "João Fernandes"
wrote:
> I wonder if the Apache Flex couldn't be splitted in core and extensions?
>
> In the core we could have what we have now as the SDK + compiler, what is
> required to get the job done (primary project target) and extensions could
> be small projects
My opinion is that Apache Flex should be only what Flex was in Adobe's era.
A simple SDK that contains only the necessary code to create an RIA.
FlexUnit, FlexCover are already projects set on google code. BlazeDS will
be somewhere in the future donated by Adobe as different project. And I
don't se
what's the purpose? sharing mailing lists? sharing repository? sharing
documentation? apart from that why framework Parsley, not Matte or
something else? How this will affect releasing new edition of flex
sdk? Will we wait with release of 4.9 sdk for bugfixing in library X?
2012/3/1 João Fernandes
I wonder if the Apache Flex couldn't be splitted in core and extensions?
In the core we could have what we have now as the SDK + compiler, what is
required to get the job done (primary project target) and extensions could
be small projects that could be associated as enhancements of the project,
l
>
> We could do that for application frameworks that need a home and don't have
> a separate community as well. The real question is who plans to work on
> it.
> I probably wouldn't work on the application frameworks.
>
> And, you can always fork off a technology later if it does get its own
> com
>Don't think I care for any type of license really... The idea is to make it
>open and get some help from those who find that interesting I would only
>have to refactor >the code and make it compliant with the latest version (I
>would wait for the version 4.8 or 4.9) I prefer putting it
2012/3/1 Jarosław Szczepankiewicz
> Let's write a wiki page with categories and links to the projects
> hosted on githud / sourceforge etc.. This will be very usefull for
> everybody looking for libraries / additions to flex.
>
That is a good idea I have a bunch of those... I actually got so
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 13:07, Michael A. Labriola <
labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >Mike, I agree with you that the core framework should stay simple, but
> maybe we could have some complementary projects don't you think?
>
> Without a doubt. I have developed a few of them. I fully support
On 3/1/12 8:00 AM, "Rafael Santos" wrote:
>
> Mike, I agree with you that the core framework should stay simple, but
> maybe we could have some complementary projects don't you think?
What I think I've learned so far, is that Apache is about community as well
as technology. If there is a not
Let's write a wiki page with categories and links to the projects
hosted on githud / sourceforge etc.. This will be very usefull for
everybody looking for libraries / additions to flex.
2012/3/1 Michael A. Labriola :
>>Mike, I agree with you that the core framework should stay simple, but maybe
>
>Mike, I agree with you that the core framework should stay simple, but maybe
>we could have some complementary projects don't you think?
Without a doubt. I have developed a few of them. I fully support the idea of
having something like a gem repository, I just meant I didn't want to see the
ma
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:45, Michael A. Labriola <
labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
>
> >Should be another project. Such as Ruby is it's own language and then you
> have Ruby on Rails.
>
> My personal opinion is that the Flex framework should stay tight and in
> the realm of a component frame
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Charles Monteiro
wrote:
> yes, exactly, Do we have a "gem" repository for Flex/AS3 ? Or will there be
> one for Apache Flex ? sorry for my newbiness and if slightly on a tangent.
> I just wonder where community members can put their "goodies" that are
> add-on exter
>yes, exactly, Do we have a "gem" repository for Flex/AS3 ? Or will there be
>one for Apache Flex ? sorry for my newbiness and if slightly on a tangent.
>I just wonder where community members can put their "goodies" that are add-on
>external components to the main core Apache Flex project.
No ap
yes, exactly, Do we have a "gem" repository for Flex/AS3 ? Or will there be
one for Apache Flex ? sorry for my newbiness and if slightly on a tangent.
I just wonder where community members can put their "goodies" that are
add-on external components to the main core Apache Flex project.
On Thu, Mar
>Should be another project. Such as Ruby is it's own language and then you have
>Ruby on Rails.
My personal opinion is that the Flex framework should stay tight and in the
realm of a component framework. I actually wish some things were removed.
However, if we ever find a reason that a project
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Charles Monteiro <
char...@monteirosfusion.com> wrote:
> right but it would be an important Flex community add-on i.e. in Ruby
> parlance , a great "gem" to have
>
Should be another project. Such as Ruby is it's own language and then you
have Ruby on Rails.
--
Jo
right but it would be an important Flex community add-on i.e. in Ruby
parlance , a great "gem" to have
2012/3/1 Jarosław Szczepankiewicz
> I agree that this is not the right project for including architectural
> frameworks (mvc / ioc / aspects). But If the components are spark
> based and follow
I agree that this is not the right project for including architectural
frameworks (mvc / ioc / aspects). But If the components are spark
based and follows spark rules they can be evaluated for inclusion into
flex sdk.
2012/3/1 Charles Monteiro :
> I agree, a functional MVC framework would be very
I agree, a functional MVC framework would be very important to have
available.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Haykel BEN JEMIA wrote:
> I don't think it should be included in the SDK as every developer has his
> own preferences but it could be very interesting to the community anyway.
>
> Hayke
I don't think it should be included in the SDK as every developer has his
own preferences but it could be very interesting to the community anyway.
Haykel
On 1 March 2012 13:46, Rafael Santos wrote:
> I would like to hear from everyone about this
>
> I have being developing a MVC Framewo
37 matches
Mail list logo
