Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of cort@cortwinters.net designates
 10.182.31.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.182.31.47;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD713624A@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
References: 
 <CAEFz_vuNuXuoJ3fMFmfGExutGy4T_8u9bUfBxQBkhsfHmdW9aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACK5iZdayrjjAQP3fAd2jW-yx-2hbPDcj24GdX_vBr9Tc_6L2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOj8ovyJ7Mw=svtYBk9_OW10rbjer9bAsFRSyUCUpeMJJFrusA@mail.gmail.com>
	<EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD71353EB@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
	<CAOj8ovyahNjqs18z-BZJsGT=EB3-c64qxsxgsCKPihCsOUCzmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD7135848@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
	<CAOj8ovwumvydZt0Onyq1Yc1wDPbRGSJXa-th_zMCYYRk7Mc98w@mail.gmail.com>
	<EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD713624A@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 15:14:16 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAOj8ovwP11rd_7aS6WGukdprEGHOAgX5OWHawFzHmaDyaEvSjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why Spark? (was Re: s:Spacer (was Re: Missing Spark components))
From: Cortlandt Winters <cort@cortwinters.net>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93b590e7154d704ba5c567c

--14dae93b590e7154d704ba5c567c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I hope I didn't come on too strong with my tone. I agree that we're not
really differing much.

And I do agree that spark is a better architecture from a programmers point
of view and for the long term. The point that I was trying to make is that
many flex users both in the past and in the future will never develop a
single user interface component. The architecture is not so important to
them as the end user facing features. How easy it is to develop a carosel
is unimportant to them, because it's outside of what they are focused on,
regardless of architecture.

They are really php or coldfusion developers that wear a half a dozen
different hats and manage every part of their project from gathering the
content to the database, the server configuration and hosting, to the user
interface. For these folk the mx components gave them the ability to create
pretty nice user interface without having to learn about flex's internals.

It's not having to add a horizontal layout, it's that when a client says
"can you change the thumb of the scrollbar so that it's dark and the track
so that it is light" that you can do so without overriding 8 classes.

Anyway I hope I didn't waste too much of your time here. I'll shift my
energy into doing something useful rather than talking about it now.

I'm pretty happy with where flex is now really and I definitely feel
empowered to fix what I'm not happy with because of this move to Apache.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:

> >...When the little guy was pushed out.
> > Most projects can't create components for the project. Most projects use
> components to build the project. That's why they are called components.
>
> I need to respond to this one separately because I think this point is
> absolutely false and incorrect.
>
> In the old framework you had a List and a HorizontalList.
>
> <mx:List/> <mx:HorizontalList/>
>
> Now you have to type this:
>
> <s:List/>
>
> <s:List>
>        <s:layout>
>                <s:HorizontalLayout/>
>        </s:layout>
> </s:List>
>
> So, to clarify, the difference in this syntax pushes the little guy out?
> These extra lines of code are the difference between success and failure?
>
> To me, that can't be true. If anything, while more verbose Spark is
> infinitely friendlier to the little guy. In mx, as soon as you wanted to do
> anything different, your only choice was to hire a component developer to
> extend/copy/rewrite these classes. Take for example a circular or carousel
> list. You can create a layout object for a circular list in a hundred lines
> of code in Spark. Since I did this in mx, I will let you know it's a
> thousand plus. If you wanted to change the headers of a datagrid in mx,
> several hundred lines of cut and paste plus maintaining a component
> extension version to version of framework changes. In Spark, you change a
> skin. Sorry, to me spark is verbose not harder, and it doesn't push anyone
> out. Its friendlier to businesses who do not have the budget or dedicated
> staff for component development.
>
> BTW, if the extra lines bother someone, then create a library calls spark
> basic, which does nothing but extend list and set the horizontal layout...
> then the syntax is nearly identical.
>
> IMO, the complaining about spark doesn't address the actual issue. There
> is nothing harder about it. It is different. The things I mentioned earlier
> in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with how mx or spark would be
> used by the average developer.  It is all internal architecture and doing
> so would in no way affect someone who didn't want to use it.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

--14dae93b590e7154d704ba5c567c--