incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
Subject Re: Apache Flex structure to be BMS compliant (was Re: Library Versions used in Flex SDK)
Date Thu, 24 May 2012 20:50:57 GMT
"This was supposed to be a parity release. I think we shouldn't change
something major in a parity release."

I think there's a misundertood. copying from my mail at 16:22 : "Maybe just
as soon as Apache Flex 4.8 sdk will be released, right?". So it's right to
wait until 4.9. We all agree with parity release is the best to start.


2012/5/24 Michael A. Labriola <labriola@digitalprimates.net>

> >Flash Builder never took into account BMS, but they will update due that
> technology requeriments....or are you saying that they will abandon Flex
> development?
>
> I am saying they will provide us exactly what we have right now, maybe
> with a few bug fixes. I am also saying that users who have Flash Builder 4
> aren't going to invest in a new IDE right now when most companies still
> doing Flex are in a 'wait and see' mode.
>
> >moreover...are you saying that we must stay with what we have now?
>
> This was supposed to be a parity release. I think we shouldn't change
> something major in a parity release.
>
> >so...that's what we can expect for the future of flex? stay with the same
> problems we ever had during all years? What kind of changes can we expect?
> only cosmetic changes?
>
> Nope, however, I do think there are a lot more than cosmetic changes that
> can be done before we have to break IDE compatibility. I think we are free
> to evolve forward as we see fit, but we also need to understand that doing
> so will invariably mean that, at some point, Flash Builder won't work with
> this SDK. That may be just fine once people have bought into the idea of
> Apache Flex being viable. I think it's an awful idea to ask people to
> invest more money when they aren't sure of its long-term viability.
>
> >Michel, you and Alex were talking about agresive changes in the
> SDK...i.e: a completely new set of flex components and arqutecture, isn't
> it?...
> >so changes like that will not obligate Adobe to update Fb in order to
> make it Apache Flex compliant?
>
> Let me be 100% perfectly clear on my opinion. No matter what Adobe has
> told you, there is no chance (IMO) that they are going to spend serious
> money reworking Flash Builder to ensure it works with a radically different
> SDK structure. I can't see this happening. I am sure they will do the work
> to test and make minor changes to ensure compatibility for a while. Maybe I
> am wrong but I don't think so.
>
> The changes I was planning on making were intentionally geared toward
> ensuring that existing projects still continue to function in existing
> versions of Flash Builder. My hope was that people like IntelliJ would
> support our more advanced features and hence become the clear choice, but
> that we wouldn't break things for existing users.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> 2012/5/24 Michael A. Labriola <labriola@digitalprimates.net>
>
> > >I think the tool refactors implied in tools like Fb or Intellij will
> > >be
> > of low impact and should not be a problem to stop evolution, since is
> > re-structure of the sdk to be a more standard piece of software...
> > maybe I'm talking from a >feeling that this not should be a huge
> showstopper.
> >
> > So, you think Adobe will refactor Flash Builder to make us happy? What
> > about the thousands of copies in use already that people won't pay to
> > update and won't work with a refactored sdk?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 35 57 77
> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com> Avd. del General Perón, 32
> Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
> 28020 Madrid
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Avd. del General Perón, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid

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