incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Charles Monteiro <char...@nycsmalltalk.org>
Subject Re: [OT] Thoughts on a Apache Flex MVC Framework
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:59:26 GMT
There's a difference between a plugin to a framework and "goodies" / "gem"
like repository. The difference is that a "goodies" repository depends on
the its "universe" typically that being a language and if done well its
declared dependencies to other entities. A plugin is a direct extension to
a framework. My question was whether there was a "goodies" repository in
general and again pardon the newbiness, I did not mean exclusively to the
Flex framework,

Rafael, I don't think you have to work too hard on the branding and if you
want to get feedback sooner than later I think that GitHub is an excellent
place to store the code plus you can put up some basic docs or readme
instructions quickly and it will all look very nice and tiddy. For now, a
nicely searchable wiki with categories and tags for the various "goodies"
would be an excellent start.

MVC is a natural intuitive separation of concerns so not overly complicated
to I guess those that are accustomed to it. In my case , as a Smalltalker I
have been working with only MVC UI frameworks since 94 so I welcome them
and personally would rather see your stuff sooner than later :)

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Igor Costa <igorcosta@gmail.com> wrote:

> I always believe that an MVC approach into Flex SDK will succumb the
> freedom of choice by many developers out there.
>
> I suggestion is to adopt a mvc aware that can be fit in any other MVC out
> there.
>
>
> The suggestion of Ruby Gems model I totally disagree, because as in Ruby
> Gems doesn't have access to core functionality of Framework . Which this
> replicates on our current Flash Player and AIR run-time architectures that
> leads by SWC.
>
> More flexible, more adopted, that's why I like the way JQuery does, with
> Plug-in architecture, which is more flexible and can be apply drawbacks on
> future releases of SDK.
>
>
> Regards
> Igor Costa
>
>
> 2012/3/1 João Fernandes <joaopedromartinsfernandes@gmail.com>
>
> > On 1 March 2012 17:13, andrei apostolache <apostolache.andrei@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >  And I don't see why I will need a MVC framework directly implemented
> in
> > > Flex SDK,
> > >
> >
> > That's not I said, it's an extension so the core would never have
> > dependencies on extensions, otherwise they aren't extensions anymore.
> >
> >
> > > Each project should have it's own purpose, because anyone who uses Flex
> > may
> > > not necessarily use FlexUnit, or BlazeDS.
> > > We already have Apache Flex (as core) and extensions (each project with
> > his
> > > own purpose).
> > >
> > > That's why it's called extensions, they would have different releases
> > from
> > the core.
> > Why under Flex Apache project? Because often those projects could be
> > enhanced by the community and usually many of those are under a
> repository
> > but the community can't commit to it. Of course you can fork it but you
> > loose the visibility of those enhancements. How many OS projects where
> > forked and those enhancements where lost in the wild?
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > João Fernandes
> >
>
> --
> Charles A. Monteiro
> www.monteirosfusion.com
> sent from the road
>
>

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