Apache projects are biased towards being a do-ocracy, but some topics probably should be discussed and general consensus converged upon before doing. It's a judgement call as to what will save the entire community the most time.
I am trying to convince every committer not to rename these packages, as I think that saves the community the most time, but for sure, I am just one opinion and and I won't veto a change if there is general consensus on a new package naming scheme. Regarding Maven and NPM and Design View, I am totally in favor of making it happen, but I am not the right person to do it. -Alex On 12/6/15, 11:27 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >Chris and Jude (and others) > >I just want to make one thing clear. When Alex says he is not interested >in this, he means that personally he does not want to do it. It does not >mean that you can't do what you feel like is the right thing for the >project and the community. If there is a particularly contentious issue, >we can always put it to the vote. There has been very few contentious >votes like that in the past. > >Just like how some are working on Maven or NPM or Design View related >stuff, we are all scratching our own itches. > >I hope this message does not get lost in all the discussion here. I feel >that a lot of times there is a discussion, some small disagreement comes >up >and everyone drops it. Apache is all about doing things. Yes, some >discussion is required, but most times just do it. If someone has a >problem in the implementation, they can express their objections and we >can >resume the discussion at that point. This way, we get more stuff done and >more committers are happy :-) > >Thanks, >Om > >On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Christofer Dutz ><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >wrote: > >> Well first of all ... my desire to keep AMF is not because of having to >> change the backend but because I don't want to throw overboard one of >>the >> greatest benefits of Flex when it comes to Server-Client communication. >> >> Well if you just look at the as3commons-logging package: >> org.swizframework:swizframework:1.2 >> org.spicefactory:spicelib-flex:2.4.0 >> org.seasar:yui:fx3-fp9-1.1.0 >> com.pblabs:pushbuttonengine:r1103 >> com.furusystems:dconsole:v2r203 >> org:log5f:1.0.55 >> nl.base42:LogMeister:1.8.2 >> org.asaplibrary:asaplibrary:20110705_rev309 >> org.maashaack:system.logging:5005 >> jp.progression:progression:4 >> org.osflash:thunderbolt:2.3 >> com.asfusion:mate:0.9.1 >> com.hexagonstar:alcon:3.1.4 >> com.carlcaldern.arthropod:arthropod:1.0.0 >> com.junkbytes:console:2.52 >> org.mockito:mockito:1.4M5 >> >> And that's just one of the 20 Modules as3commons consist of. And I left >> away air, osmf, etc in that list as I think these are the ones we know >>:-) >> >> I would rather opt for taking, what's good, giving it a new package name >> and omitting stuff none needs. Moving the other stuff to some sort of >>attic >> where we could easily integrate it back if people are requesting it to >>be >> supported. >> >> I think after Adobe announced giving up on Flex about 80% of the >> frameworks died and only a hand full of great ones survived. I'm not >> planning on keeping zombies alive, that none need, but would gladly help >> keep the maintain the good ones. >> >> Chris >> >> ________________________________________ >> Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Dezember 2015 06:25 >> An: dev@flex.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons >> >> I'm not a fan of changing the package names. Already this week we heard >> folks wanting AMF because they don't want to change their backend, and >>I've >> heard several folks wanting a more Spark-like API surface for FlexJS. >>My >> new mantra for 2016 is to try to not make more work for folks who are >> migrating their code. >> >> What do we really gain by changing package names and making folks alter >> their code? Would we also switch out mx and spark for org.apache.flex? >> >> I suppose we could bundle AS3Commons with the SDK, but keep in mind >>that I >> think we want to make as much of AS3Commons work for FlexJS as well. >> >> @Chris and/or Christophe, what other libraries is AS3Commons dependent >>on >> that we need to be concerned about? >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> From: jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com<mailto:flexcapaci...@gmail.com>> >> Reply-To: "dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>" < >> dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>> >> Date: Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:30 PM >> To: "dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>" >><dev@flex.apache.org >> <mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons >> >> If someone will help me with that I'll do it. What I'm thinking is when >> you create a new Flex project you get all of the SWC's by default. >> >> So in this case we have something like this: >> >> [Inline image 1] >> >> We need to add the new components set in there, the as3commons in there >> and the other packages we have but aren't including. Some of the new >>Spark >> components should be put into the Spark project folders. "But they may >>not >> be perfect!" Put. them. in. People will finally find them for once, then >> use them, then we can get some bug reports and fix things as they come >>up. >> PUT THEM IN. It may make one tough release but we'll be working towards >>a >> feature complete spark release and we'll successfully have integrated an >> external project (as3commons) into the main project. >> >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:33 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala >><bigosma...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bigosma...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hey, you committer ;-) You have all the power to drag those components >>and >> put them in. I like your idea. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:27 AM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com<mailto: >> flexcapaci...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > Since Flex was open sourced it's felt like to me it's stagnated. We >>had >> all >> > of these new components donated or proposed to be donated proposed to >>be >> > worked on and I haven't seen any of them. I think it's because it's in >> some >> > white board somewhere. I hate that. Put them in the main branch. Put >>it >> in. >> > Then we can see them in code completion. Then we can start getting bug >> > reports as their being used. >> > >> > Put as3commons into our.main.branch.utils. If that's org.apache.utils >> then >> > fine. I also figure if someone is upgrading their SDK and we've >>renamed >> the >> > package then there is no conflict. They can remove the link to >> > as3commons.swc and all the API's will cause errors. Then they just go >>in >> > and use the new packages. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Michael Schmalle < >> > teotigraphix...@gmail.com<mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > IIRC most of the projects have some pretty thorough unit tests as >>well. >> > > >> > > Mike >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:14 PM, jude >><flexcapaci...@gmail.com<mailto: >> flexcapaci...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 for renaming it. make it part of the main package. that way we >> have >> > to >> > > > commit to it. if we put it off to the side there's more "it's a >>side >> > > > project. we don't need to maintain it." >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kessler CTR Mark J < >> > > > mark.kessler....@usmc.mil<mailto:mark.kessler....@usmc.mil>> >>wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Good point, we should keep it the same then. However if we do >>have >> > to >> > > > > reorganize it in the future, we can go over options then. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Mark >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: Alex Harui >>[mailto:aha...@adobe.com<mailto:aha...@adobe.com >> >] >> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:52 AM >> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I'd either leave it as is: org.as3commons >> > > > > Or add apache: org.apache.as3commons >> > > > > Or add apache.flex: org.apache.flex.as3commons >> > > > > Or hint at Apache Commons: org.apache.commons.as3 >> > > > > >> > > > > There is backward compatibility to be considered, so if we >>rename >> the >> > > > > packages folks would have to change their source code to use >>it, so >> > I'd >> > > > > probably lean towards leaving it as is. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Alex >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
