From flex-dev-return-5884-apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Mar 1 16:01:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B16F79D6E for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79311 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2012 16:01:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 79273 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2012 16:01:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 79265 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2012 16:01:35 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:01:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 209.85.160.175 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of rsantos@spectacompany.com.br) Received: from [209.85.160.175] (HELO mail-gy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:01:29 +0000 Received: by ghbz2 with SMTP id z2so276837ghb.6 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rsantos@spectacompany.com.br designates 10.60.3.2 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.60.3.2; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rsantos@spectacompany.com.br designates 10.60.3.2 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rsantos@spectacompany.com.br Received: from mr.google.com ([10.60.3.2]) by 10.60.3.2 with SMTP id 2mr2064781oey.0.1330617668278 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.3.2 with SMTP id 2mr1818491oey.0.1330617668195; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:01:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.216.68 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:00:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Rafael Santos Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:00:48 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [OT] Thoughts on a Apache Flex MVC Framework To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ff0871d54e04ba309176 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmGgtUVwwtiEnfPy0N20oi9MBn75VeGIpc883NFCAVI/ks+5kJcVmXF3RJG2yFw1t3aj4TN X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8fb1ff0871d54e04ba309176 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:45, Michael A. Labriola < labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > > >Should be another project. Such as Ruby is it's own language and then you > have Ruby on Rails. > > My personal opinion is that the Flex framework should stay tight and in > the realm of a component framework. I actually wish some things were > removed. However, if we ever find a reason that a project like this cannot > exist external to the framework, some dependency or other such issue, then > we should treat that as a bug. In other words, make sure the framework can > be extensible and make sure other such projects can always exist externally > but keep the framework itself as small as possible. > Mike, I agree with you that the core framework should stay simple, but maybe we could have some complementary projects don't you think? --e89a8fb1ff0871d54e04ba309176--