incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as>
Subject Re: [OT] Flash Platform roadmap
Date Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:00:06 GMT
I still don't know if I'm following what you really want..   I totally see
the want/need for AIR for Linux.  A compiler for Linux I see as even a
higher priority.  But from what I'm putting together, you want a
console-based flash player?

I can't picture how that fits in with Flex.  Flash (and Flex) is really a
presentation interface, and would be really silly without some sort of
graphical output (with the notable exception for mining the swf for data,
like what the search engine project was doing).  Now, if what you are
requesting is a command-line actionscript interface -- I see more use in
that.  In fact, didn't there used to be a quirky as2 console interface
apart of FCS?

-Nick

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Left Right <olegsivokon@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Are you really proposing a headless, or console-mode Flash Player for
> linux users?
>
> 1) It possibly exists (well, I'm 99% sure because Macromedia once released
> SEO SDK for processing SWFs, so, I'm guessing that's the starting point,
> besides, I could infer this indirectly through some testing results that
> leaked from Adobe bug base - things that suggested that the player was
> launched automatically and some other program gathered the statistics about
> it's performance).
> 2) If I'm mistaking, and it doesn't exist, making one would be priceless!
> :)
> 3) There is ECMAScript implementation of POSIX, I'm not sure of it's
> quality, but incorporating that into player would be an extra bonus.
> * I'm not saying users, because it may mean users who browse the internet.
> What I mean by "users" is people who are using Linux as a platform for
> development.
>
> If such thing would be built in mind with that there is another program /
> module that provider rendering - that would be uber cool. But that's too
> much Unix-way for a corporative thinking to handle at one time :)
>
> X is known to be a particular painful place, *hopefully* it is going to
> change, because everyone is aware of it, but the substitutes aren't good
> enough yet. But I'm still thinking that this is a difference in approach.
> I'll try to explain using an example:
>
> Couple days ago I needed, for the class, to do some simple stuff using some
> SQL database. So, I said to myself, why wouldn't I use clsql library
> (Common Lisp library for various flavors of SQL) and MySQL. Done. Not so
> fast... it appeared that there are no binaries, and I have to build the
> bindings for MySQL on my own. The library provides some guidelines an make
> files to build the bindings, but I need to put some extra work to adjust it
> to my system. Took me few hours to understand what was I missing, and where
> the header files should go, but in the end it compiled and all is good.
> Do I feel afterwards like whoever wrote clsql did a poor job? - not at all,
> how could they know that the header files for mysql library weren't in the
> place they are usually found on Debian-like distros? Well, they couldn't,
> and so I'm not complaining about the code not working "out of the box".
> Same thing here - if you can get it to the point it works within certain
> conditions - perfect, as long as you can explain the requirements. You
> didn't have the time and ability to test on all permutations of the set of
> Unix utilities - that's a wasted effort, you will never be able to. Just
> leave the door open for whoever is willing to adjust it for their purposes.
>
> Best.
>
> wvxvw
>

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