Hi Alex,

my company really does not need one or another. This is more something I'm
interested to get more appealing UX.
So I'll be adding one if I have the time, so at least we have some of this
available to others. But others could add others too (hope so for this and
for many other things )

El mar., 9 jul. 2019 a las 17:38, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>)
escribió:

> I'm not sure what "we need both" means.  If "we" is your company, then
> yes, you are welcome to choose one or the other, if "we" is Royale, then I
> would prefer that Royale does not choose one over the other and hope that
> volunteers will provide wrapping for both.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 7/9/19, 2:10 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     ok Alex,
>
>     that's fine. For me the game is between the two I already mentioned
> (web
>     animations api and popmotion. As I have the time to play with both,
> I'll be
>     able to see if we need both, or one purpose is replacing the other, and
>     what's better or more flexible. In the end seems both are duplicating
> the
>     target in most cases.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Carlos
>
>
>
>     El mar., 9 jul. 2019 a las 8:16, Alex Harui (<[email protected]
> >)
>     escribió:
>
>     > IMO, there should not be an "Official Apache Royale Animation
> Library".
>     > There are so many ways to do animations with various trade-offs that
> we
>     > should provide as many ways as we can and let our users decide.
>     >
>     > The Royale releases can provide a Royale version of Greensock as
> long as
>     > it is an option used by the minority (not majority) of our users.  Or
>     > Greensock can provide the Royale version.
>     >
>     > Really, the goal of Royale is to provide strongly-typed API surfaces
> for
>     > common JS patterns (or really, common patterns on any
> runtime/platform).
>     > If we can create API surfaces that work great on multiple
>     > platforms/runtimes, that's a bonus, but it is totally fine to
> provide an
>     > API surface that closely mimics a popular existing library even if
> ports to
>     > other platforms/runtimes is difficult/impossible.  That's why there
> is the
>     > MaterialDesignLite library.
>     >
>     > Think of comparing the efficiency of finding some JS snippet on
>     > StackOverflow or on some library provider's getting started site then
>     > copying that snippet into your app and trying to get it to work.
> Sometimes
>     > it is easy, sometimes it is a painful process.  The Royale wrapping
> of that
>     > snippet strictly defines the inputs and outputs of that snippet so
> you know
>     > right away what the right data types are to submit and receive.
>     >
>     > So pick one JS animation library and wrap it, then do another one or
> try
>     > to convince some other volunteer to wrap it.  If we are successful,
> the
>     > library providers will want to provide the wrapping themselves
> because it
>     > will reduce support overhead for their users.  But we shouldn't pick
> one as
>     > the "official" one.
>     >
>     > My 2 cents,
>     > -Alex
>     >
>     > On 7/8/19, 10:42 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi Harbs,
>     >
>     >     I'm thinking more in an official Apache Royale library. Of
> course, we
>     > can
>     >     provide GreenShock in some separate GitHub repo like Royale
> Extras or
>     > other
>     >     (personal, company,...)
>     >
>     >     thanks
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     El lun., 8 jul. 2019 a las 16:48, Harbs (<[email protected]
> >)
>     > escribió:
>     >
>     >     > Not sure what you mean by “us”. If you mean Royale, we I guess
> we
>     > can’t
>     >     > include it because it does not have compatible licensing.
>     >     >
>     >     > If you mean your company, I don’t know why you can’t wrap it
> and use
>     > it in
>     >     > a Royale app.
>     >     >
>     >     > Harbs
>     >     >
>     >     > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> [email protected]
>     > >
>     >     > wrote:
>     >     > >
>     >     > > Hi Josh,
>     >     > >
>     >     > > IMHO, Greensock seems not to be the best option for us, so if
>     > others
>     >     > don't
>     >     > > say the oposite we can discard it. And Web Animations API or
>     > Popmotion
>     >     > Pure
>     >     > > seems the best options we have
>     >     > >
>     >     > > Web Animations API seems to be ALv2 [1]
>     >     > > Popmotion seems to be MIT [2]
>     >     > >
>     >     > > [1]
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fweb-animations%2Fweb-animations-js&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291744443&amp;sdata=fwE0A5nDLaKmRR7IN2hq4lHG6CFF81XOtGYdgEmhQpI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > > [2]
>     >     > >
>     >     >
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FPopmotion%2Fpopmotion%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fpackages%2Fpopmotion-pose%2FLICENSE.md&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291744443&amp;sdata=KQobDc1oB954Hg0nkWsbkGlPeZIhiCLKAJrpuvUdFDw%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > > El lun., 8 jul. 2019 a las 15:42, Josh Tynjala (<
>     >     > [email protected]>)
>     >     > > escribió:
>     >     > >
>     >     > >> Greensock's source code is available, but it is not a
> standard
>     > open
>     >     > source
>     >     > >> license. They require a commercial license if your project
> meets
>     > certain
>     >     > >> conditions.
>     >     > >>
>     >     > >>
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreensock.com%2Fstandard-license&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291744443&amp;sdata=kD6e%2BbUJ7%2FsPMuJHt0C3xtkkHjwg5OnJ0Tr3Qb0Xbjc%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >>
>     >     > >> - Josh
>     >     > >>
>     >     > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 4:36 AM Carlos Rovira <
>     > [email protected]>
>     >     > >> wrote:
>     >     > >>
>     >     > >>> Hi,
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> one thing I'm investigating in parallel among other things
> is
>     > about how
>     >     > >> to
>     >     > >>> make animations easy in Royale.
>     >     > >>> We have already some infrastructure in the Effects.swc,
> but this
>     >     > library
>     >     > >>> has the great point to be very oriented
>     >     > >>> to Royale with beads and although I didn't tried in SWF, I
>     > suppose is
>     >     > >>> working for Royale JS and SWF.
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> In the other hand there's other great JS frameworks out
> there
>     > that
>     >     > brings
>     >     > >>> many options to this field, but the problem will be
>     >     > >>> just that: only JS.
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> For me the better option would be to create a new library
> to be
>     > used
>     >     > with
>     >     > >>> UI sets, that brings the power of some programatic JS
>     >     > >>> lib out there, and concentrate in the JS part in the short
> term
>     > but
>     >     > left
>     >     > >>> open to SWF for others that want to bring that part to it.
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> I think many things nowadays can be done in CSS, or JS or
>     > combination
>     >     > of
>     >     > >>> both. And I like the idea of having most of this in CSS
>     >     > >>> if possible. I think Web Animations API has both options
>     > animations via
>     >     > >> JS
>     >     > >>> API and via CSS
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> I was interested in Framer [1]. I always liked it. But
> seems
>     > Framer has
>     >     > >>> turn towards React. Today I could have a call with Framer
> people
>     >     > >>> to ask for possibilities to make some Royale lib (as we
> did for
>     > MDL)
>     >     > for
>     >     > >>> Framer , since although the older version is OS, the newer
> is
>     > still
>     >     > >>> not, although they want to make it OS. The problems is
> Framer is
>     > very
>     >     > >> React
>     >     > >>> oriented, so I think is not a real option.
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> Then Framer people kindly point me to Popmotion Pure [2],
> that
>     > seems
>     >     > the
>     >     > >>> point from where Framer was created.
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> I still need to dig a bit into this, but seems a good
> option
>     > (for what
>     >     > I
>     >     > >>> see).
>     >     > >>> So, one option could be:
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> a) Use Web Animations API: I used this already in Jewel
> Wizard,
>     > and
>     >     > maybe
>     >     > >>> this is the real option of future
>     >     > >>> b) Use Popmotion
>     >     > >>> c) Use GreenShock [3] (I think others here like Harbs
> pointed to
>     > this.
>     >     > I
>     >     > >>> still didn't look at it, but I think is a payed lib, so
> maybe
>     > not the
>     >     > >>> better to use)
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> What do you think about it? I'd like what others think
> about all
>     > of
>     >     > this
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>> [1]
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fframer.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291744443&amp;sdata=rWpZhBWpnaBtuc0GE%2B%2FQl6o9CI1pT78%2FhBG4WfynqVo%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >>> [2]
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpopmotion.io%2Fpure%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291744443&amp;sdata=bUA7XvglDb4FZQ4hS11Xbl1cZe8EjJot3UOJqwwATw0%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >>> [3]
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreensock.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291754434&amp;sdata=qVbi8iODgT2koL5s9rZic7svleM3MF8CugbE83NdlfQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >>> --
>     >     > >>> Carlos Rovira
>     >     > >>>
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291754434&amp;sdata=6wuIG7Ic2YGrA4oKKOH5iszkPuU2o7QPleRWLlhmFxg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     > >>>
>     >     > >>
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > > --
>     >     > > Carlos Rovira
>     >     > >
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291754434&amp;sdata=6wuIG7Ic2YGrA4oKKOH5iszkPuU2o7QPleRWLlhmFxg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     Carlos Rovira
>     >
>     >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291754434&amp;sdata=6wuIG7Ic2YGrA4oKKOH5iszkPuU2o7QPleRWLlhmFxg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>     Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5f04b164f5e74d0422f408d7044d48a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982602291754434&amp;sdata=6wuIG7Ic2YGrA4oKKOH5iszkPuU2o7QPleRWLlhmFxg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to