I'm proposing to use what the SDK has to offer, mx and spark, and add a thin wrapper class around each of those: goog. However, the goog components don't add any functionality, they only provide support for the JS workflow. From a developer point of view they'll look and act just like their mx and spark counterparts.
EdB On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: > Something isn't clear to me. > > Are you proposing that the AS3 code for Flex contains 3 groups of > components? (mx or it's equivilent, spark, and goog) > Or are you proposing that there are 2 groups of AS3 components, mx and > spark, and one set of JS components (goog) which have different levels > of compatibility with the first 2 groups? > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I > and the number 47 > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> One of the goals behind the vanilla SDK is to create a JS compatible >> framework that closely resembles the Flex SDK. The idea is that the >> coding and workflow in the AS IDE (likely Flash Builder) closely >> matches working with Flex as we know it. This way ASJS has no learning >> curve at all: it's just another release build option. JS output that >> "just works" :-) >> >> In order to do accomplish this, I'm working on integrating the >> VanillaSDK into the SDK proper. Don't worry, it's all happening in my >> whiteboard for now. >> >> But I'd like your feedback on some of my ideas, while the >> implementation is still in it's early stages: >> >> 1) create a new namespace in the SDK: http://flex.apache.org/js/goog >> 2) add only the components to this namespace that are compatible with JS >> output >> 3) create JS compatible versions of spark (and other?) components, >> using composition >> 4) create JS versions of these components: the VanillaSDK >> >> This way hope to achieve the following: >> 1) isolate the new components from the rest of the SDK, to avoid >> "confusion" for developers >> 2) allow for incremental development, since only properly prepared >> components will be available >> 3) by using composition instead of inheritance we keep control over >> what we expose to the developer, allowing for API compatibility on the >> JS and AS side, while still use Flex components on the AS side >> >> There's (much) more to it, but for now I'd like to ask: does this make >> any sense, and if it does, how might we improve on this idea to make >> it work better? >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> -- >> Ix Multimedia Software >> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> 3521 VB Utrecht >> >> T. 06-51952295 >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
