incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com>
Subject Re: Apache Flex Namespace URI
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:10:05 GMT
On 3/14/2012 12:36 PM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@dot-com-it.com 
> <mailto:jeffry@dot-com-it.com>> wrote:
> > On 3/14/2012 5:39 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> I don't know about Flex but in many cases changing namespace URIs is
> >>> problematic
> >>
> >> They  have no effect on ActionScript code (ie 99% of the SDK). It 
> would effect MXML code
> >
> >  Which is 99% of the code people write.  Changing namespaces will 
> cause more issues for people maintaining code with the old namespace 
> than it would for us as SDK developers.  I, personally, don't care if 
> the namespace URL is valid.  ( Adobe's isn't).
> >
> >  I'm all for following the 'Adobe" convention and using something 
> like this:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/flex/mxml
> >
> >
>
> I really doubt 99% of the code people write is MXML. 
  I meant to say 99% of the code people write is in MXML components.  
Even if it's ActionScript code.
  Of course, the 99% number is a completely made up, I really intended 
to say "a lot".  I believe that was the same use of "99%' by the post I 
was responding to.

> If it is they should reconsider. 

  Why?  There is nothing inherently wrong w/ MXML.  In many cases it is 
quicker than writing 100% ActionScript.

> I'd say my Flex projects have been about 10-15% MXML, only driving skins.

  That's great, but I suspect is unusual, especially for beginners.  My 
experience with many developers is that they write a lot of MXML 
components for their applications.  Even if those files have 
ActionScript for event handlers and the sort, my experience is that most 
Flex developers do not do layout in ActionScript.

  My original intended point was that we should not choose one namespace 
now and change it in a release or two.  I stand by it.  Others have 
pointed out it may make sense to use a real URL that we can put a page 
behind as the actual namespace URL.  Despite my original indifference to 
the idea; I think it's a good idea.

-- 
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust


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