flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Wasilewski <devudes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FalconJS has landed
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:44:43 GMT
The one that Kevin proposed below (jangaroo) and you keep talking about 
licensing it :).
Sorry if that wasn't clear but trying follow the wave here.


On 11/28/2012 6:50 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/28/12 10:35 AM, "Daniel Wasilewski" <devudesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I have noticed up there as well, this project not only have JS bits
>> implemented to mimic flash player, but Action Script bits as well with
>> lots of missing features.
>> I see the point behind this idea, and the guys were trying to find a
>> common ground between both platforms. But ended up rewriting code for
>> both platforms.
>> I am not sure this is what we need, don't we? I saw potential behind
>> FalconJS to at least make this heavy lifting on AST level as the common
>> ground. Otherwise will go back to project I am doing, which is pretty
>> much jangaroo approach as well, but philosophy and implementation behind
>> it differ.
> I'm not sure what project you are referring to, but at this time, we're at
> such an early stage, I would encourage folks to try different angles.  I
> have mine and am eager to have folks help shape it, but that doesn't mean
> other approaches should not be explored.
>> Dan
>> On 11/28/2012 6:09 PM, Kevin Newman wrote:
>>> Anyway, a lot of the current popular plan seems to revolve around
>>> doing direct bindings from Flex into JS/DOM objects and not using a
>>> Flash layer at all, so it does seem like it may not be needed. Still,
>>> it seems like an option, and there is useful core items in there, like
>>> BitmapData, etc. that are already implemented.
>>> Maybe the legal overhead outweighs the benefits of an already
>>> completed code base?
>>> Kevin N.
>>> On 11/28/12 12:47 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>> I don't think we need it.  But if folks want to try, they need to
>>>> make sure
>>>> it is legally ok with Apache if we do so.

View raw message