Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of carlos.rovira@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: carlos.rovira@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACWtOtWGnuHRC75cADGfZqK9Fekgmwco+dQR6U3w6F9BFrmrPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACK5iZf=pFb+c23KJf5nR_iGU835kocmPCoRm4um2NoZgxHPMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B3A6E3C61@nambx05.corp.adobe.com>
	<EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD7267F94EB@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
	<5AFAEF43-03C2-4782-80DF-0C9341EA6912@lndgrn.se>
	<CAEFz_vus_Aj2cjD=L1n8+46W2Y5tY0w1aBUPKhKG9G2mKNs5dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACK5iZe6JnxQiqprsGp1dfKFarHfnLYKQ=Pctxn25ZKCZzfrUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<EB6F7A48D477254EAB8F675582F80CD7267F9DD7@DPSBS1.digitalprimates.local>
	<CACK5iZdJLMmAFn8xi+NsZmPqyf0taNmZ8Uj3BOWL=Mt5tDVfvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACWtOtWGnuHRC75cADGfZqK9Fekgmwco+dQR6U3w6F9BFrmrPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:31:31 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAMFKFRhOKHyutd6BR=7TeR2BVu=v_dqwPexErGN+rYHJ1oHDMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cross-compiling Flex to HTML5/Javascript (Was : Update on Falcon
 donation)
From: Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

AFAIK Google has made the same with GWT as Adobe with Flex. But GWT
has the problem to generate overbloated JS code...

2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com>:
> Hello guys, I'm following all the topics here but I post rarely because
> most of the times someone else has said something that I agree with 100%.
>
> This time though, I was trying to think about similar technologies which
> are either compiled to js or they are converted in js in some other way.
> So I thought about GWT. The appproach google has taken with it is very
> similar to Flex. They even have a skin architecture equivalent.
> What I'm trying to say is, what if we could achieve something similar. Th=
ey
> seem to be translating Java to JS without a problem because they exclude
> Java features that are not compatible.
> It's a small Java subset, I'll give you that, but developing in Java and
> creating skins just like in Flex is way more interesting and agile compar=
ed
> to pure HTML and JS.
>
> As far as I can tell, both languages are not that different (Java and AS3=
).
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
>> labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >Can you please elaborate?
>> >
>> > >The point I was trying to make was that HTML5 language itself is not
>> > designed to be extensible.  Using Javascript does not really count (in
>> this
>> > >context)
>> >
>> > >As far as using the DOM, I assume you mean the Microdata format.  Thi=
s
>> > results in non-standard HTML most of the time and is not supported acr=
oss
>> > browsers.  And it deals more with extending data semantics and >not
>> > functional extension.
>> >
>> > In flex, IMO, we worried too much about extension and not enough about
>> > composition.
>>
>>
>> I think that is besides the point.  There is nothing in MXML that preven=
ts
>> composition.  It is just that the current set of Flex components are bui=
lt
>> like that.  We can fix that given time and effort.  There is no need to
>> structurally modify MXML to achieve this.
>>
>> Whereas with HTML(5) there is nothing in the standard that will let us d=
o
>> specialization (via inheritance or composition)  I cannot dream up new
>> elements and expect a browser to understand it out of the box.
>>
>>
>> > So long as I have a good series of patterns (and the discipline to fol=
low
>> > them) then I can look at the HTML DOM elements as the Atoms of the
>> universe
>> > and assembly them with some bonds (JavaScript) to make an element. And
>> then
>> > in turn assemble those to make any application.
>> >
>>
>> Right, we need Javascript to do this kind of extension to HTML.  To do t=
his
>> in the Flex world would mean that we either
>>
>> * Bring in JS as a language we support in Flex
>> or
>> * Keep Flex as it is (i.e. Actionscript based) and have a AS to JS
>> translation layer.
>>
>> The latter is a better approach because of various reasons ranging from =
JS
>> not being a real OOP language, no package organization possible, etc (we
>> all know why AS is better than JS)
>>
>> I think being able to code in MXML and Actionscript would be a key goal =
of
>> this cross-compilation effort, right?  Unless we want to fundamentally
>> change what 'Flex' means.
>>
>>
>> > So, the key is not trying to extend the Atom but trying to assemble it=
 in
>> > useful ways and allow those to be extended or recomposed. So far, I ha=
ve
>> > found few limitations of this approach and often times ended up much
>> > happier.
>> >
>> >
>> I definitely agree with you on this.  But again, this requires Javascrip=
t
>> to assemble things.  My above points still hold good as well.
>>
>>
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Tsitlakidis,
>
> CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> www.perfectedz.com


--=20
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnolog=EDa
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77
CODEOSCOPIC S.A.
Avd. del General Per=F3n, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid