flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From João Fernandes <joaopedromartinsfernan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Oprtional MVC/IOC Frameworks Donation: Swiz Framework Donation
Date Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:02:18 GMT
+1 (non binding)

To me, all those points were already clear in the previous thread.


On 2 June 2013 10:57, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 (non binding)
>
>
> 2013/6/2 Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
>
> > This vote comes from an original vote thread declared as null (see
> > original thread for info about motivations):
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/o6zjmorfh4lxuygo
> >
> > The new vote thread is considering the donation of the optional MVC/IOC
> > Swiz Framework.
> >
> > Points taken from the original vote thread:
> >
> > * 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).
> >
> >
> > Here's the new points from Alex Harui to make clear what it implies:
> >
> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go
> into
> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK.
> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.  People
> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > favoritism.
> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> process.
> >
> > This vote thread will be open for the next 72 hours
> >
> > Please make your vote.
> >
> >
>



-- 

João Fernandes

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message