At the time we started at Apache in 2012, one major customer was standardized on IE8.
Sure, IE is extra work, but that is a potential good thing for us. We are in the business of encapsulating repeating patterns. If there is a set of beads that are IE fixes and Royale is the easiest way to build web apps for IE, we win. Lemons into Lemonade. There are/were many large corporations who used Flex for intranet use only. Naturally, any customer-facing Flex apps would support modern browsers. But there were many internal-facing apps where the employee was given a desktop running IE, just like employees used to be given a terminal to type on. It is locked down, you can't add plugins, etc. I will ask around Adobe this week and see if I can get more recent information. -Alex On 2/25/18, 12:56 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]> wrote: >I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even >imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something >sophisticated in IE. >My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client >wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always >trippled >the price because it was a nightmare. :) > >I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of >thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time >has >come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There >were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :) > >IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :) > >Thanks, >Piotr > >On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating >> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not >>with >> old ones. >> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and >> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least >>in >> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into >> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a >> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we >> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us. >> >> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used >>and >> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but >>the >> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have >>almost >> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what >>system >> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we >> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking >> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there >> that needs to have that support. >> >> >> >> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>: >> >> > Hi Harbs, >> > >> > if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I >>think it >> > will make more easy for new comers to get it >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back >>to >> >> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported. >> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap >>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7 >>Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 >>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551458434992412&sdata=Yzr4BTAHY37BBPXleMJGY >>XVDzZvxJ4RXDgQmdbZj%2Ft0%3D&reserved=0 < >> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.ap >>ache.org%2Fasdoc%2F%23!org.apache.royale.utils%2FObjectMap&data=02%7C01%7 >>Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 >>94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636551458434992412&sdata=Yzr4BTAHY37BBPXleMJGY >>XVDzZvxJ4RXDgQmdbZj%2Ft0%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> >> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak >> >> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() >>instead >> of >> >> bracket access. >> >> >> >> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit. >> >> >> >> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird >>things >> >> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the >>ASDoc >> >> very well… >> >> >> >> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. >> Not >> >> sure… >> >> >> >> HTH, >> >> Harbs >> >> >> >> > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > That might make porting some legacy Flex code a >> >> > lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means >>Dictionary >> >> with >> >> > weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something >> >> related >> >> > to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall >> exactly) >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Carlos Rovira >> > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408 >>d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655145843499241 >>2&sdata=ZgekNt7mbqhywsR90rmC6P0wFw19poXgS1f95Q091aI%3D&reserved=0 >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Carlos Rovira >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C999e5fcc037d4db23e0408 >>d57c2dc6ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655145843499241 >>2&sdata=ZgekNt7mbqhywsR90rmC6P0wFw19poXgS1f95Q091aI%3D&reserved=0 >>
