@Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr <flex.masul...@gmail.com>wrote: > IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be > Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework. > Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More > information can be found here [1]. > > [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex > > > -- > Sebastian (PPMC) > Interaction Designer > > Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: > http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Carlos. > > > > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially > > close the vote. > > > > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but > without > > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was > > officially closed. > > > > Thanks again, > > -Alex > > > > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > wrote: > > > > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread > > >and I open a new one just now. > > > > > > > > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > > > > > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second > > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been > > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you > > >> want to add/amend in the new vote. > > >> > > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, > > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. > > >> > > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result > > >> has been called? > > >> > > >> EdB > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >> > My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and > Om. > > >> I > > >> > guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still > reads > > >>as > > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation > of > > >>the > > >> > proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. > > >> > > > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not > > >>picking > > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are > > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading > some > > >>of > > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of > > >>what > > >> is > > >> > going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP > > >>code > > >> is > > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were > going > > >>to > > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a > > >>set > > >> of > > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what > > >>makes > > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. > > >> > > > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to > consider > > >>the > > >> > number of -1's. > > >> > > > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that > > >> > > > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could > go > > >> into > > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. > > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the > > >>SDK. > > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. > > >>People > > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or > > >> > favoritism. > > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. > > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same > > >> process. > > >> > > > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's > or > > >> -1's > > >> > without qualifications. > > >> > > > >> > -Alex > > >> > > > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have > not > > >> been > > >> >>addressed. > > >> >> > > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib > > >> >>folder > > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a > main > > >> >>repo? > > >> >> > > >> >>Thanks, > > >> >>Om > > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" > > >><carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > > >> >>wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Ok Erik, > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote > > >>(Igor > > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was > > >>already > > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to > > >> >>>maintain > > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the > preferred > > >> >>>mvc-ioc > > >> >>> microarquitecture. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention > of > > >> >>>donate > > >> >>> the source code and wiki > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Carlos > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it > > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he > > >> declined > > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when > > >>casting a > > >> >>> > negative vote. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some > hoops > > >>he > > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- > > >>we > > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general > > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or > > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit > > >>more, > > >> >>> > I think. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this > > >> >>> donation. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > EdB > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -- > > >> >>> Carlos Rovira > > >> >>> Director de Tecnología > > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > >> >>> F: +34 912 94 80 80 > > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com > > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es > > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es > > >> >>> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Ix Multimedia Software > > >> > > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 > > >> 3521 VB Utrecht > > >> > > >> T. 06-51952295 > > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Carlos Rovira > > >Director de Tecnología > > >M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > >F: +34 912 94 80 80 > > >http://www.codeoscopic.com > > >http://www.directwriter.es > > >http://www.avant2.es > > > > >
