We’re using PureMVC with FlexJS.
From: Vincent<mailto:vinc...@after24.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:04 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> Subject: Re: [FlexJS] Some things still missing ni FlexJS Hi Carlos, I agree with you. AMF support is essential for us to start thinking porting our Flex apps to FlexJS. I use MVC architecture with the support of Parsley 3 for : - Dependency Injection - Messaging - Managed command (synchronous and asynchronous) Is there an equivalent of this tools in the current version of FlexJS ? Cheers. Vincent. Le 11/01/2017 à 10:43, Carlos Rovira a écrit : > Hi Alex, > > I think many people in this thread are saying "No, we'll not go to > production without AMF and basic module support". IMHO, it would be very > difficult to say we have 1.0 without that, since AMF/RemoteObject was in > almost 99% of old Flex SDK, with some HTTPServices and almost no > WebServices (I mean the MXML object). > > As well, for a basic experiment, people could go without modules, but for a > producction App, a basic load of modules is needed. > > Then, i18n, Routing, Unit and Functionality testing and so on should come, > but for me (If I must to choose) that could come after 1.0 > > For example, in my own company, without AMF and Modules I don't have enough > to put FlexJS over React to ask people to use it over the other... (and I > know that we'll find many other little things we need in the road) > > Just my 2ctns > > > 2017-01-10 18:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > >> In my mind, there is little doubt that someone will someday implement AMF >> and not-unloadable modules. The question is when? IMO, as soon as >> someone can tell us they've gone to production with the code we have, I'm >> willing to call that 1.0, and the people who wrote that app probably >> migrated a single SWF, single-language, XML or REST app. Regular Flex >> grew just fine and it didn’t support modules in 1.0. >> >> For sure, as we add modules, AMF, I18N, we'll gain more customers, but I >> am hesitant to say these are all 1.0 required features. >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> On 1/10/17, 6:28 AM, "Dev LFM" <developer...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2017-01-10 14:09 GMT+00:00 Fréderic Cox <coxfrede...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> AMF is also essential for us to take FlexJS serious as a replacement to >>>> Flex >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Vincent <vinc...@after24.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Same points than Christopher : AMF and modules. >>>>> The first is essential for us. >>>>> >>>>> Vincent. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 10/01/2017 à 13:07, Christofer Dutz a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> +1 for the AMF and +1 for not-unloadable modules. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see it the same way as Carlos. At the moment I see FlexJS as an >>>>>> opportunity for companies to get out of the dilemma of being stuck >>>> in a >>>>>> dead end with their existing Flex applications. >>>>>> Supporting things like modules and AMF will ease the migration costs >>>>>> dramatically. Even if AMF might be a touch slower than JSON I still >>>> think >>>>>> it’s worth being supported. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 10.01.17, 12:14 schrieb "carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von >>>>>> Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von >>>>>> carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> "IMO, this has two halves: non-unloadable modules is relatively >>>>>> straight >>>>>> forward to do. Unloadable modules will be a ton of work. IIRC, >>>>>> Flex 1.0 >>>>>> and I think even Flex 2.x grew its customer base without >>>> unloadable >>>>>> modules." >>>>>> If non-unloadable modules is easy to implement, I think it >>>>>> should go ASAP. >>>>>> Then we could left unloadable modules por the future... >>>>>> For me, AMF is a must, since many companies are using it, >>>> and >>>> I >>>>>> expect many >>>>>> of them switch from old Flex to FlexJS if it's as easy as change >>>>>> only the >>>>>> frontend. Change server code means no easy way to change, so >>>> stick >>>>>> in old >>>>>> code >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> 2017-01-08 9:52 GMT+01:00 Harbs < >>>>>> harbs.li...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> > I agree that skinning is harder than it should be. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For one thing: There’s too many attributes which are set >>>> directly. >>>>>> More >>>>>> > extensive use of CSS would make skinning easier. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Jan 8, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Christofer Dutz < >>>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > From my side I’m missing skinnable components. I really >>>> loved >>>>>> the way I >>>>>> > could create applications with skinning. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carlos Rovira >>>>>> Director General >>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 >>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com >>>>>> http://www.avant2.es >>>>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y >>>> puede >>>>>> contener >>>>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este >>>> mensaje >>>>>> por >>>>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta >>>> misma >>>>>> vía y >>>>>> proceda a su destrucción. >>>>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos >>>> (15/1999), >>>> le >>>>>> comunicamos >>>>>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es >>>>>> CODEOSCOPIC >>>>>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la >>>> prestación >>>> del >>>>>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de >>>> acceso, >>>>>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos >>>> dirigiéndose a >>>>>> nuestras >>>>>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la >>>>>> documentación >>>>>> necesaria. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >
