Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 joaopedromartinsfernandes@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted
 sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CDCE1C75.A52D%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <093d01ce5cd3$5db37560$191a6020$@spoon.as>
 <CDCE1C75.A52D%aharui@adobe.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Fernandes?= <joaopedromartinsfernandes@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 17:52:02 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGgUee27g6ViGM=3yOqpvMJAANkO2yDw0+XwV1mnTjL1WOEkrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118278e5ffefd04de06708a

--089e0118278e5ffefd04de06708a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alex, even if AOP would be added at compiling time, it would be up to the
frameworks to leverage it, swiz or other.

Regarding -1 votes, I think 2 of them will be solved if swiz is under the
utilities and not making it as part of the Flex SDK.
The last -1, no reason has been given so Igor will have to elaborate why
he's against.


On 31 May 2013 17:30, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're
> seeing.
> Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after
> some discussing with those voting -1?
>
> I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo.
> I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own
> releases and not be part of an SDK release.
>
> One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a
> committer did try to add AOP into the SDK.  Would that conflict with the
> implementations in Swiz or other frameworks?  Or is the expectation that
> some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP=
?
>  Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love
> than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed" framework,
> which is what I think we are trying to avoid.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <jeff@spoon.as> wrote:
>
> >-1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of th=
e
> >main branch, but instead live in a separate repo.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM
> >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
> >
> >+1 (binding)
> >
> >
> >On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira
> ><carlosrovira@apache.org>wrote:
> >
> >> After proposal thread
> >> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes
> >> the vote thread.
> >>
> >> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under
> >> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex
> >community.
> >>
> >> points to take into account:
> >>
> >> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK
> >> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and
> >> well designed.
> >> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional
> >> a NOT part of the main sdk.
> >> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0,
> >> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade
> >> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex
> >>technology.
> >> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content.
> >> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of
> >> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP
> >> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex
> >> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that
> >> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time
> >weaving).
> >>
> >> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation:
> >> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation
> >> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC
> >> framework of use.
> >>
> >> Points to take into account:
> >> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with it"
> >> under Apache Flex umbrella.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please make your vote.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >
>
>


--=20

Jo=E3o Fernandes

--089e0118278e5ffefd04de06708a--