incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Flex suggestion - dumping SWF support in favor of HTML5 - listen to Steve
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:49:13 GMT
Someone needs to create a FAQ that points to these discussions.

1) Will the next version of Flex output to HTML5
Probably not.

Current roadblocks:
• HTML5 does not support the full API used by Flex. Solutions suggested
include creating an alternative version of the SDK without them.
• Roadblock 2
• Roadblock 3 (added as they come up)

Conclusion:
It is under investigation and will be pursued after Falcon / FalconJS
compiler is committed to the repository. Limitations will have to be
explored and listed. Discussions [1] [2]

2) What's going to be in the next version of Flex?
People are working on component parity of Spark components to mx
components, optimizing base classes like UIComponent, removing
dependencies, etc (add yours here). What actually is in the next release is
ultimately based on... Discussions [1]


3) How do I submit a patch?
...

4) How do I submit a component?
...


On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:16 AM, James Roland Cabresos <
j.cabresos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good to know! Was the discussion of that approach available here?
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Roland Cabresos [mailto:j.cabresos@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:16 PM
> > > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org; flex@rduartes.net
> > > Subject: Re: Apache Flex suggestion - dumping SWF support in favor of
> > > HTML5 - listen to Steve
> > >
> > > Just a suggestion, If the current Flex version can't be entirely ported
> > > or
> > > be made compatible to FalconJS or any other AS3 to JS compiler because
> > > of
> > > the limitations, perhaps we could just create a separate version of
> > > Flex
> > > where it is optimized for these compilers.
> > Such an approach has already been discussed.
> >
> > > This way we may have
> > > something
> > > that is working in less than 6 months I guess.
> > I think it will much longer than 6 months.
> >
>

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