flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Name of the FlexJS Fork
Date Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:04:58 GMT
I agree that for getting new users who don't already know about Flex, that
having a name without Flex in it would be best.  But I think Justin Hill
is saying, and I share his concern, that folks who are sitting on a Flex
app and thinking about migrating might be more attracted to a product
named FlexJS than some name without Flex in it.

Further, I think we might want to have one product for the migrating Flex
customer and another for someone coming in without Flex background.  The
getting started documentation might be different.  One would leverage
existing knowledge of MXML and AS and draw comparisons between Flex and
FlexJS.  Just about all migrating Flex customers don't need as much detail
on what RemoteObject and AMF is, for example.  But a new person without
Flex background may not even be interested in RemoteObject.  We could put
RemoteObject support in its own SWC and not ship that SWC in a package
that targets folks who don't know Flex.  The release package for folks
without Flex background may not mention Flash Builder at all or contain
the Flash Builder integration modules, launch configs, and  documentation.
 It may not even support any other IDEs other than VSCode and maybe
Moonshine.

I'm still trying to finish up build scripts that create a non-Adobe
release package.  Once I get that done, I can try creating a different
non-Adobe release package that isn't a valid Flash Builder SDK and doesn't
contain any Flash Builder support and make sure it works with VSCode and
see if the Moonshine folks want to support it and what we would need to
change to make it work.  And that package without Flash Builder support
could have the same name as the Project, but the other package that
supports other Flex IDEs could still be called FlexJS.

This is why I proposed what I did last night:
-Project name: Royale
-Product name for folks who don't know Flex: Royale
-Product name for folks who do know Flex: FlexJS

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 9/14/17, 3:59 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

>In my view, the biggest reason for a fork is to get away from the name
>Flex.
>
>In terms of familiarity, show a few lines of MXML code to current Flex
>developers, they will immediately recognize it.
>
>The same way that I recognize JQuery if I see the $ symbol or AngularJS
>when I see ng-something.
>
>My point is, if we can have a big snippet of MXML on our home page, SEO
>for
>flex, flejs, actionscript, mxml, etc, we should be able to cover existing
>Flex users.
>
>For getting new users, IMHO, we must must get rid of the word Flex.  Once
>someone comes in based on curiosity, we need to ensure that they like what
>they see, namely ease of setup, ease of use, features support, etc.
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Sep 14, 2017 3:36 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless there are objections, I propose we continue the vote for the
>> project name and we can have a separate discussion once the new project
>>is
>> formed on what to name the product.
>>
>> I don’t think we should rush into the decision on the product, but the
>> project name is more time critical and has less marketing impact.
>>
>> Does that sound like a plan?
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Piotr Zarzycki
>><piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Guys,
>> >
>> > Reading Justin's thoughts we should really consider all of that. We
>>can
>> > loose a lot of already gathered attention even if Carlos will put
>>effort
>> > for new brand.
>> >
>> > +1 for having Product Name as FlexJS. That would be the bridge which
>>can
>> > hold us.
>> >
>> > Piotr
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 23:31 Peter Ent <pent@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the project name were to be "Apache Royale" and produced FlexJS,
>>and
>> >> the Apache Royale web page/wiki referenced FlexJS and made it
>>available
>> >> for Google searches, then anyone who was interested in or heard about
>> >> FlexJS and searched for "FlexJS" (or "Flex" or "Adobe Flex" or
>>"Apache
>> >> Flex" or "ActionScript Flex" or <etc>), they should get a link to
>>Apache
>> >> Royale in their search results. The blurb that accompanies the search
>> >> result should mention FlexJS. I think that would be enough to pique
>> >> interest and get a click.
>> >>
>> >> Substitute "Royale" for whatever name you'd like the project to be
>> called.
>> >>
>> >> ‹peter
>> >>
>> >> On 9/14/17, 5:16 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It¹s great to have another perspective on this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Some of these issues can be addressed by SEO.
>> >>>
>> >>> It could be that we should be careful about changing names, and / or
>> >>> timing of changing names.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alex does make a good point that the project name does not need to
>>be
>> the
>> >>> same as the product name. It might make sense to keep the product as
>> >>> FlexJS for now at least and just pick a different project name. The
>> >>> product name is easier to change than the project name and a project
>> can
>> >>> have more than one product.
>> >>>
>> >>> If I would pick a reference to a product which did a major
>>rebranding
>> to
>> >>> drop associations to old technology it would be Xojo. I¹m not sure
>>how
>> >>> many here are familiar with it, but it used to be call REALBasic. A
>>few
>> >>> years back they rebranded as Xojo. I don¹t think it made much of a
>> >>> difference to the folks using it. I have no idea if it helped them
>>or
>> not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Harbs
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Justin M. Hill <Justin@prominic.net>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am not someone with an official vote, but I wanted to express
my
>> >>>> concern
>> >>>> about ditching the FlexJS name.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The largest possible market for adoption of a new "javascript"
>> solution
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> to go after those who have stuck with Flex.   There are FAR too
>>many
>> >>>> javascript solutions on the market right now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If the vote is to change the name, this will:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- confuse the people who have been patiently waiting for FlexJS
to
>> get
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> 1.0 so they can dive in.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- get lost in the noise of all of the other far more well
>>popularized
>> >>>> javascript frameworks like Angular, React, etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- lose the feeling, however small it may be, that those who came
>>from
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> Flex background can expect to have some of their knowledge
>>recycled.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These are 3 critical aspects in terms of raising awareness and
>>having
>> a
>> >>>> potentially devoted following of one technology (Flex) star to
>> >>>> transition
>> >>>> and champion to a new one (FlexJS).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If we lose that, then we effectively have to target against ALL
>> >>>> javascript
>> >>>> frameworks, most notably ones that are heavily entrenched already
>>and
>> >>>> supported by giant company resources like Google and Facebook.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am strongly opposed to a name change.  I think this would be a
>>huge
>> >>>> mistake.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On top of that, picking a new name and gaining awareness of it is
>> HARD.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It should be reason enough for the Apache powers-that-be to
>>approve a
>> >>>> project change to avoid being stuck with a huge legacy Flex bugbase
>> that
>> >>>> Adobe donated, and instead start fresh with our 1.0 name.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If that cannot be achieved, then at a bare minimum we should seek
>>to
>> >>>> keep
>> >>>> the name FlexJS.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regarding targeting something other than Javascript -- like SWF
or
>>AIR
>> >>>> -- I
>> >>>> realize the debug aspect benefits are important, but all this is
>>going
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> do is confuse people.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have read about HaXe a dozen times, and I never understand what
>>it
>> >>>> does
>> >>>> because apparently it does too much.   A swiss army knife is a lot
>> more
>> >>>> confusing to use then a fixed head screwdriver.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please, we have spent SO much time trying to get to 1.0 -- lets
get
>> >>>> FOCUSED
>> >>>> on delivering what everyone outside of the community of active
>> >>>> participants
>> >>>> here has been waiting on, which is a future direction for their
>>Flex
>> >>>> efforts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Justin Hill
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2FProminic
>> >> .
>> >>>> NET&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce3d4e33b77f840be8d2b08d4fbb5
>> d605%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
>> >>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636410205784877857&sdata=
>> cw5LAiH6bOvULqdsdx4NL
>> >>>> GWNUawI58dy%2F4fqTI5aCaM%3D&reserved=0 | Skype: JustinProminic
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My Apache Flex community contribution is working on the open
>> >>>> source Moonshine-IDE.com for FlexJS.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message