That's a frustrating issue, however Adobe just removed tlf and as2 from CC. I think we can follow suite and safely ignore backward compatibility. We need the player to be backwards compatible, not the codebase.
If a team needs more performance they are not going to be concerned with backwards compatability in the code IMO. But the lack of performance options will cause them to choose another language or framework all together. On 2 Jul 2013 16:34, "Gary Young" <flashflex...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to make the backward compatible a branch which only fixes > bugs, and break UIComponent in another new branch which alway cutting edge? > > Flex Spark is the one architecture, maintaining back compatibility makes it > not perfect. > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/1/13 10:15 AM, "Avi Kessner" <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Why can't we get rid of those 13k line base classes? > > >On 1 Jul 2013 20:03, "Jonathan Campos" <jonbcam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We can, but not without breaking backward compatibility or slower > > performance. In the two attempts I made, you can break UIComponent into > > some 20 sub-components but unless you break backward compatibility, many > > of those sub-components have to be instantiated during the startup phase > > and the extra overhead of calling in and out of the subcomponents slowed > > things down. > > > > That's why FlexJS isn't guaranteeing backward compatibility. We can take > > those sub-components and load them on-demand at different times. > > > > -Alex > > > > >
