Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Michael A. Labriola" <labriola@digitalprimates.net>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [POLL] - Must Flex 5 be a complete rewrite or can flex code
 base be re-architectured?
Thread-Topic: [POLL] - Must Flex 5 be a complete rewrite or can flex code
 base be re-architectured?
Thread-Index: 
 AQHNw/jrdz8xsKDpUESAHjTVpyOZe5fs2REAgAALFICAAAdogIAAGsKAgAAFqYCAAAabgIAACQwAgAADeoD//8o2wA==
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:27:16 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD7268CDC37@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
References: <50A6773C.4060803@gmail.com> <CCCBBA27.489C0%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CCCBBA27.489C0%aharui@adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

>Because I expect the major factor in deciding what to do with your existin=
g apps is about the cost of moving.  For sure, if you completely abandon Fl=
ex you will have to rewrite all of your >views and all of your business log=
ic.
>If I offered a solutions where you still had to rewrite your views but not=
 too much of your business logic, I think that would make it an attractive =
choice.

Alex,

There is one problem/fallacy here. The vast majority of the world did not w=
rite code in which their business logic was separate from their view. So, f=
rom that perspective, it is a full rerite.

Mike