On 4/18/16, 2:29 PM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If the only reason to not use the flash namespace is because it has a
>pejorative term to some ignorant media types and competing web developers
>than that's not a good case.
For me, it is about expectations. If you claim to have a
flash.display.Sprite, folks will keep bugging you until it does everything
Flash does. I'd rather set expectations lower and exceed them, but that's
just my opinion.
>
>But if you change it, you're creating problems later when someone wants to
>use to use things like getDefinitionByName("flash.*.*");
That's a good point, but can also be solved in various ways.
>
>Maybe it looks solvable from your end. I'll leave that up to you. But if
>you leave it as is then, you also have the possibility of taking existing
>flash code examples found online, use the same code and get the same
>results without changing the names.
That would be the goal even if we rename the classes, but again, you can
see how that sets us up for folks wanting us to emulate the entire Flash
Player in the browser. I'm not sure that is what Apache Flex should
really be about. That may be another community. IMO, it will be much
less energy to emulate Flex than Flash. For starters, Flex does not
really promise a timeline and elastic racetrack.
-Alex
