Hi: I totally agree with this update. So +1 :) :)
Regards!! El lun., 14 sept. 2020 a las 10:58, Carlos Rovira (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Chris, > > I'm all for it. We really need BladeDS in Royale, so we should keep it with > the flow and also improve it for the actual needs. Spring Flex integration > is now dead, so bringing that too to keep it alive would be very good. > > So it's ok for me to leave BladeDS in Flex in its current name and > versioning (and if there's any need in flex in forthcoming years let others > do the patches they could need), and bring BlazeDS in its current state as > "RoyaleDS" here and start releasing new improvements for Royale with the > new name. > > I think that also will make Royale stronger since we already support the > main AMF implementation in this project. > > So +1 > > > El lun., 14 sept. 2020 a las 10:44, Christofer Dutz (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > > Hi all, > > > > currently I’m using Apache Flex BlazeDS as backend for my Royale > > applications. > > > > This has somewhat become a little old and I do need to do quite some > > tweaking to get it working with Royale and especially with new Spring, > > Spring-Boot and Spring-Security. > > So I guess doing some update of that and re-releasing does sound like a > > good idea. > > > > But I think it would be better to do a clean cut and optimize it for > usage > > with Royale. > > > > I’d even like to call it something “RoyaleDS” to make the link Rolyale + > > RoyaleDS a little more obvious than the old Flex + BlazeDS pair. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Right now the Flex project seems like we’re keeping the lights on in an > > empty building and I doubt things will improve soon. Starting to move the > > things we want to keep on maintaining to Royale sounds like a good thing > to > > to. > > Perhaps even a stripped down version of the mavenizer. > > > > Chris > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira >
