I want to stress this point. If the 3.x SDK does not make it in to Apache Flex, then all current code written in 3.x immediately becomes legacy code with no obvious path forward. Once that happens, it becomes much harder to argue in favor of giving Apache Flex a chance instead of just switching now to html/js/etc, because the risks of rewriting an app in one or the other is perceived to be equal.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Quentin Le Hénaff <lek...@gmail.com> wrote: > I totally agree, I do not understand why it would not be ; still some > innovating products are based on Flex 3 and not Flex 4 as the migration had > some drawbacks and is expensive. > > Many projects have their own Flex base code, I've re-done many base > components ; this is very important to share them all or so much work will > be wasted. > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Keith Sutton <ke...@spoon.as> wrote: > > > On 1/18/2012 8:21 AM, Doug McCune wrote: > > > >> Oh wow, I had no idea the 3.X branch might never make it into the Apache > >> project. I think that's a really bad idea. As others have mentioned, > lots > >> of large enterprises use 3.X (the app I work on included). I always just > >> assumed that 3.6 would make it into Apache at the same time the latest > 4.x > >> branch would too. > >> > >> It was requested repeatedly at the Summit and Deepa and Danny > definitely > > said yes it would be. From a enterprise customer perspective it seems > > unavoidable. > > >
