With the greatest of respect, I have to disagree - i dont think it is
reasonable to accept donations for the reasons you suggest.
"while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't
clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That
would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and Apache
is not an historical archive.
"in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer wish
to support a separate community around those bodies of code" - If nobody
is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it on a free
github account), how useful a project is it?
"we know we have active folks here who have used or developed these
libraries and can contribute if needed" - They would would still help
out if project were hosted elsewhere, wouldn't they?
Your argument seems to be 'if we dont save them, they will die'. I think
we need to let evolution run its course - if a project is
useful/important enough to the community, it will survive without Apache
Flex's help.
"having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related libraries seems like
a good thing to me" - Its only one-stop shopping it you use Swiz. I'm
all for publicising the fact that there are great libraries for
extending Flex, but wouldn't a page on the wiki be more appropriate?
That way, everyone gets a mention.
Anyway, this is a democracy, so i'll accept the majority decision - but
i really dont like it.
On 03/06/2013 22:21, Alex Harui wrote:
Apache is about communities and open source software. Creating new
communities and projects is quite a bit of work, having just gone through
it for Flex. There are some popular libraries like Swiz, Parsley,
FlexUnit, TLF, and more that, while they could continue to exist in GitHub
or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle
questions or bugs, and in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that
they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of
code.
So, while I agree these libraries are not part of the Flex Framework, it
seems reasonable to accept these donations because we know we have active
folks here who have used or developed these libraries and can contribute
if needed. And if we see a separate community form around some of these
libraries we can spin them off into their own projects.
As the proposal stated, these libraries aren't destined to be integrated
into the Flex SDK. But having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related
libraries seems like a good thing to me.
-Alex
On 6/3/13 10:53 AM, "Lee Burrows" <subscripti...@leeburrows.com> wrote:
I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is
even occuring.
This project is called "Apache Flex" after all, so why are other
projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end?
Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects
if the owner offers them?
Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex
framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho.
On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote:
@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
--
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter
--
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter
