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 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:59:38 GMT
Igor, have you read the proposal? it's stated that it will not be part of
the SDK and will be totally optional.

On 3 June 2013 16:51, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
> -----Message d'origine----- From: Carlos Rovira
> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 11:57 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Oprtional MVC/IOC Frameworks Donation: Swiz Framework
> Donation
> This vote comes from an original vote thread declared as null (see original
> thread for info about motivations):
> http://markmail.org/message/**o6zjmorfh4lxuygo<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

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