I always believe that an MVC approach into Flex SDK will succumb the freedom of choice by many developers out there.
I suggestion is to adopt a mvc aware that can be fit in any other MVC out there. The suggestion of Ruby Gems model I totally disagree, because as in Ruby Gems doesn't have access to core functionality of Framework . Which this replicates on our current Flash Player and AIR run-time architectures that leads by SWC. More flexible, more adopted, that's why I like the way JQuery does, with Plug-in architecture, which is more flexible and can be apply drawbacks on future releases of SDK. Regards Igor Costa 2012/3/1 João Fernandes <joaopedromartinsfernan...@gmail.com> > On 1 March 2012 17:13, andrei apostolache <apostolache.and...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > And I don't see why I will need a MVC framework directly implemented in > > Flex SDK, > > > > That's not I said, it's an extension so the core would never have > dependencies on extensions, otherwise they aren't extensions anymore. > > > > Each project should have it's own purpose, because anyone who uses Flex > may > > not necessarily use FlexUnit, or BlazeDS. > > We already have Apache Flex (as core) and extensions (each project with > his > > own purpose). > > > > That's why it's called extensions, they would have different releases > from > the core. > Why under Flex Apache project? Because often those projects could be > enhanced by the community and usually many of those are under a repository > but the community can't commit to it. Of course you can fork it but you > loose the visibility of those enhancements. How many OS projects where > forked and those enhancements where lost in the wild? > > > -- > > João Fernandes >
