flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Falcon location
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:18:51 GMT

On 8/15/12 10:43 AM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2012 9:07 AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> I agree that it is the way to go in the long run.  But, from Gordon's
> description, it does not sound like Falcon its anywhere close to achieving
> this.  In the short term, making it a top level project creates a barrier
> that  would prevent people contributing to it.  Which in turn would delay
> the eventual goal of making a separate release of Falcon.
For me (and I think for everyone else reading this thread so far) separation
now seems better as it makes it clear you should not add more SDK
dependencies to the compiler.

>> Features of a single deliverable like the SDK.  But I think Falcon should
> be
>> thought of as a separate sub-project.  TLF as well.  Both Falcon and TLF
> can
>> be involved in SWFs without any other SDK code in it.
> Is there any reason why we can't do the same while having Falcon inside the
> modules directory?  Once we achieve this goal, we can move it out to a
> separate project.
See above.
> In the end, here is what I am proposing:
> Lets keep Falcon inside /flex/trunk/modules/falcon.  It would make working
> with it much easier.  Work on making Falcon sdk-independent  can also
> happen here.   Once that goal is achieved, we can move it to a too level
> project-by which time it should just be a directory copy.
Well, it is only Wednesday, and so far, nobody has joined your side so on
Thursday, I think we're going to make the tree as Carol most recently
proposed it.
> If we still want to make Falcon a top level project, I would like to see
> how the the the typical developer set up would look like.   Just saying
> consider it a top level project without figuring out the dev setup is not
> very helpful in making such a decision.
> Gordon asked the same question and has not been discussed in this thread.
I'm sure we can figure it out.  Flex is already comprised of several other
Apache TLPs like Batik and Velocity.  It should be even easier to handle one
that is actually somewhere else in our own repo.

IMO, you are arguing against the principle of modularity and/or separation
of concerns.  Yes, there is a bit more overhead, but is should be worth it.
You voted for a much more complex branching strategy supposedly in favor of
modularity.  I'm surprised you are pushing back on it here.

Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.

View raw message