Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cframpto@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.183 as permitted sender)
From: Carol Frampton <cframpto@adobe.com>
To: "rajubitter@gmail.com" <rajubitter@gmail.com>
CC: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:19:25 -0800
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator
Thread-Topic: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator
Thread-Index: Acy/64znOkxhFR5fRyaABjeARl90yQ==
Message-ID: <CB1752F0.485C%cframpto@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+67v59H-OfUG7-x4MrBuP3hTrrvtT6kOK+4VPLhMHcn9necAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Raju,

I was at the Flex Summit that Peter blogged about.  At the pre-summit
briefing I attended, Danny Winokur, the VP who hosted the meeting, said
that as of last Monday, Adobe was still selling new support contracts for
Adobe Flex 4.6 and I believe he said that during the summit as well.
Danny also said Adobe does not plan to offer support contracts for Apache
Flex.

I did notice that Peter's blog was incorrect on this point.

Carol

-----Original Message-----
From: Raju Bitter <rajubitter@googlemail.com>
Reply-To: "rajubitter@gmail.com" <rajubitter@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:31:58 -0800
To: Adobe Systems <cframpto@adobe.com>
Cc: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator

>Thanks for that information, Carol!
>
>Based on this blog post on the Flex Summit it sounded like the company
>made an announcement on support contracts there:
>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2011/12/13/flex-summit-updates-on-the-open-s
>ource-strategy-and-runtimes/
>
>Thanks again,
>Raju
>
>2011/12/20 Carol Frampton <cframpto@adobe.com>:
>> Raju,
>>
>> I believe Adobe is selling support contracts for Adobe Flex version 4.6.
>>
>> Apache Flex, although initially the same codebase as Adobe Flex 4.6,
>>would
>> be a different product.  The community can take it in whatever direction
>> it would like to go.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raju Bitter <rajubitter@googlemail.com>
>> Reply-To: "rajubitter@gmail.com" <rajubitter@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:13 -0800
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator
>>
>>>Thanks for the quick response, Greg!
>>>
>>>On 12/20/11 9:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:30, Raju Bitter<rajubitter@googlemail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2) Action Script Virtual Machine (AVM)
>>>>> In November 2006 Adobe open source the Flash Player Script engine:
>>>>> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/press/mozilla-2006-11-07.html
>>>>> Is the source code of Tamarin still the current version of the Action
>>>>>Script
>>>>> Virtual Machine in Flash Player 11? If there is a new version of the
>>>>>AVM
>>>>> (2+), will that be contributed to the Apache Software Foundation as
>>>>>well?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't really make sense to only contribute a compiler, if there
>>>>>is no
>>>>> open source implementation of a runtime/scripting engine available,
>>>>>but that
>>>>> might only be my personal view. If the community would decide to
>>>>>create a an
>>>>> open standards based runtime for Flex, would that mean the community
>>>>>would
>>>>> have to start from zero?
>>>>
>>>> I think that's just your personal view :-)
>>>That's true, but still would be good to have an open source, up-to-date
>>>scripting engine for ActionScript bytecode to enable other future
>>>runtimes (imagine running the same ActionScript 3 code in the client and
>>>on the server, like node.js). Therefore it would be very valuable to
>>>know if Tamarin is still compatible with the scripting engine Flash
>>>Player 11.
>>>
>>>> There is a ton of open source code written to work against Oracle's
>>>> RDBMS, or Windows' .NET runtime, or Apple's iOS. I see no problem with
>>>> Apache Flex targeting a proprietary environment.
>>>I'm not sure which projects you are talking about: .NET runtime should
>>>be compatible to Mono,
>>>
>>>>> 3) Commercial support for Apache Flex
>>>>> Does Adobe plan to offer support for an Apache Flex product? If yes,
>>>>>what
>>>>> kind of support would be planned. I read somewhere that Adobe will
>>>>>not
>>>>>offer
>>>>> any support for Flex 4.6+ to new customers, but I'm not sure, if
>>>>>that's
>>>>> still the current plan.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is orthogonal/unrelated to the Apache Flex proposal.
>>>I think it is related to the proposal. If Adobe has binding contracts
>>>for future versions of Flex, and the Apache community would decide to
>>>change Apache Flex 4.7 implementation details, Adobe might be forced to
>>>fork the project for customers. How would that work?
>>>
>>>>> 4) Flash Player
>>>>> Are there any plans to open source a stripped-down version of Flash
>>>>>Player,
>>>>> e.g. the discontinued version of Flash Player for mobile) in the
>>>>>future
>>>>> (similar to the pure open source Flex SDK vs. the commercial SDK)?
>>>>>The
>>>>> Apache community could continue working on a browser-based mobile
>>>>>runtime
>>>>> for Apache Flex, if that was the case.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise.
>>>Isn't it a valid question to ask which runtimes will be available for a
>>>a framework with compiler? To be technically correct, Flex applications
>>>WON'T run in mobile browsers without a Flash Player (which means you
>>>won't see a Flex application on iOS). You CAN compile a Flex application
>>>into a mobile application using the Adobe AIR SDK and the Adobe AIR
>>>player. The proposal mentions rich Internet applications running in
>>>desktop and mobile browsers. Elsewhere iOS is mentioned. As we all know,
>>>Flash applications (SWF files) cannot be rendered in iOS browser.
>>>Therefore the question if there will be a way run mobile Flex
>>>applications in mobile browsers as rich Internet applications (versus
>>>native apps) is very valid in my eyes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I hope I don't sound to skeptical here, but Adobe Flex is quite
>>>>>different
>>>>> from most Apache projects I've been in contact with. It's a powerful
>>>>> compiler with an interesting language, but it looks like the output
>>>>>of
>>>>>the
>>>>> compiler can only be used with Adobe-owned proprietary software at
>>>>>the
>>>>> moment.
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned above, I don't see this as a problem whatsoever. And
>>>> even if *some* people have a problem with it, there is a huge
>>>> committer list of people who obviously have zero problem with that
>>>> fact. The Foundation is here to provide support to communities, rather
>>>> than block them on philosophical rationales. (IMO :-) So if a
>>>> community wants to build up around Apache Flex, then we do what we can
>>>> to help them.
>>>I've been using Flash for the past 8 years in projects, organized Flex
>>>User Group meetings, co-organized events with Adobe. I have a good
>>>understanding of what Flash, ActionScript and AIR are capable off, how
>>>many people are using Flash, how useful it can be.
>>>
>>>But none of the companies offering RIA related products and players in
>>>the past 7 years (Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, to name the big ones)
>>>has not been affected by strategy changes of the management, often
>>>leaving developers and clients in positions which were less optimal.
>>>(Adobe Flex 1.5 -> 2.0 changes, differences in Silverlight APIs with
>>>major version upgrades, Sun/Oracle dumping JavaFX Script, Microsoft's
>>>decision to favor HTML5 over Silverlight).
>>>
>>>Adobe decided to discontinue development of Flash Player for mobile
>>>devices and smart TVs (it's a company decision, we have to respect
>>>that, but it wasn't easy for large number of people to hear those
>>>news). If they would decide to discontinue the desktop version of
>>>Flash Player, wouldn't it be good if the community would have an
>>>alternative runtime prepared already? I believe it is in the interest
>>>of the Apache Flex community to have an alternative runtime for Flex
>>>in the not-too-far future, and if Adobe would express support of that
>>>goal , it would be very valuable.
>>>
>>>The proposal might have a sentence saying: "Adobe will provide the
>>>Apache community with the technical information needed to develop
>>>additional runtimes for Flex." Would that be acceptable?
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -g
>>>
>>>Thanks again for you comments!
>>>
>>>Raju
>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>--=20
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Raju Bitter | Software Architect
>cell: +49 (0) 176 322 011 96
>fax: +49 (0) 8821 68 69 08 29
>email: rajubitter@googlemail.com
>Germany


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org