Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I deeply disagree to that statement. There is not an unique valid way to approach a development and having so many frameworks sums to make better the FLEX ecosystem. 2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.com IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite,
RE: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
So, the argument again becomes one tool for all jobs... Perhaps there are a multitude of MVC approaches because they each have their specialty and one should choose the solution based on the problem, not by precognition. Mike 2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.com IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
RE: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I have to respectfully disagree. My -1 vote was conditional on knowing exactly how the contribution would be handled (as Om and others have pointed out). I cannot in good faith vote in favor of this without the solutions to the issues laid out being clear in the vote thread. -Original Message- From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Rovira Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:49 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex Hi, seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting vote mail. Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a utilities project it's sure that his release will be separated from flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to start talking about that. So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us know following steps. Thanks 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of specifics in the proposal. Here are the things that are bothering me: 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the other frameworks? 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? Here are the alternatives I could think of: a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and resolve them. Thanks, Om On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one,
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Sebastian, you should open a new thread :) On 3 June 2013 17:22, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.com wrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Interesting..., to me, some are light weight, some full featured, some complex, some simple, I guess the choice of a framework very depends on the project needs (and probably at time, the knowledge of the team on the framework). -Fred -Message d'origine- From: Sebastian Mohr Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:22 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box IMHO no, that is not needed, because Flex can be used to create an MVC/MVVC/MVP/you-name-it architecture out of the box without any framework. And wouldn't that be like integrating Spring into Java? Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. How? Am 03.06.2013 18:22, schrieb Sebastian Mohr: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
@Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other MVC framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.comwrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi guys, How can i unsubscribe this list !? tks, Marcelo 2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez maxime.co...@gmail.com @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other MVC framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.com wrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Send an email to flex-unsubscr...@flex.apache.org Sad to see you go :-( Can you maybe tell us why you are leaving? EdB On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Marcelo Fabricio de Mello marcelofme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, How can i unsubscribe this list !? tks, Marcelo 2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez maxime.co...@gmail.com @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other MVC framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.com wrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is even occuring. This project is called Apache Flex after all, so why are other projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end? Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects if the owner offers them? Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho. On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote: @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other MVC framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.comwrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
With the greatest of respect, I have to disagree - i dont think it is reasonable to accept donations for the reasons you suggest. while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs - That would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and Apache is not an historical archive. in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of code - If nobody is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it on a free github account), how useful a project is it? we know we have active folks here who have used or developed these libraries and can contribute if needed - They would would still help out if project were hosted elsewhere, wouldn't they? Your argument seems to be 'if we dont save them, they will die'. I think we need to let evolution run its course - if a project is useful/important enough to the community, it will survive without Apache Flex's help. having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related libraries seems like a good thing to me - Its only one-stop shopping it you use Swiz. I'm all for publicising the fact that there are great libraries for extending Flex, but wouldn't a page on the wiki be more appropriate? That way, everyone gets a mention. Anyway, this is a democracy, so i'll accept the majority decision - but i really dont like it. On 03/06/2013 22:21, Alex Harui wrote: Apache is about communities and open source software. Creating new communities and projects is quite a bit of work, having just gone through it for Flex. There are some popular libraries like Swiz, Parsley, FlexUnit, TLF, and more that, while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs, and in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of code. So, while I agree these libraries are not part of the Flex Framework, it seems reasonable to accept these donations because we know we have active folks here who have used or developed these libraries and can contribute if needed. And if we see a separate community form around some of these libraries we can spin them off into their own projects. As the proposal stated, these libraries aren't destined to be integrated into the Flex SDK. But having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related libraries seems like a good thing to me. -Alex On 6/3/13 10:53 AM, Lee Burrows subscripti...@leeburrows.com wrote: I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is even occuring. This project is called Apache Flex after all, so why are other projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end? Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects if the owner offers them? Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho. On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote: @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for most situations). Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any other MVC framework, but other people should be able to use it if they like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex. Max On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr flex.masul...@gmail.comwrote: IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then Apache Flex MVC framework. Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More information can be found here [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
On 6/3/13 6:49 PM, Jeffry Houser jef...@dot-com-it.com wrote: On 6/3/2013 7:44 PM, Lee Burrows wrote: while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs - That would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and Apache is not an historical archive. in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of code - If nobody is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it on a free github account), how useful a project is it? I have had similar thoughts; but Lee stated them much more elegantly than I. ( Thanks Lee). Yup, and your reasoning is well-considered. I'm not sure there is a 'right' answer, but IMO, we're all here to change the expected 'evolution' of Adobe's move away from in-house development of Flex. But we do have to keep an eye out for spreading ourselves too thin, showing favoritism for one framework vs another, etc. It is the primary reason I have been voting '0'. I, personally don't see the mutual benefit to either project to get donated; but do not see any benefit in trying to block the donation from others who seem to care about it a lot more than I. When I last commented on Swiz; one response was there are a few contributors that never got their improvements / bug fixes merged to the project so anyone using swiz is missing those. http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.incubator.flex-dev#query:list% 3Aorg.apache.incubator.flex-dev%20from%3A%22Jeffry%20Houser%22+page:1+mid: wsd6vm6tjp6mba6z+state:results I have no idea how moving the project to Apache Flex will address that issue. Because we have a process, any Apache Flex committer can make those changes to the code base and create a release candidate. And if anyone is that motivated, I will take the time to review the candidate, and I hope the others voting for donation will as well. And that's a better chance than I think the situation would be otherwise. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote. @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread and I open a new one just now. 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you want to add/amend in the new vote. Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result has been called? EdB On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced. The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi, here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who open the vote) 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com Hi, seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting vote mail. Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a utilities project it's sure that his release will be separated from flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to start talking about that. So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us know following steps. Thanks 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of specifics in the proposal. Here are the things that are bothering me: 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the other frameworks? 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? Here are the alternatives I could think of: a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and resolve them. Thanks, Om On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote:
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
The vote was open for more than 72 hours. I'm closing it. Here are results: +1 (binding) Erik de Bruin Greg Reddin Justin Mclean Fréderic Thomas -1 (binding) Igor Costa (no explanation) Jeff Tapper (he stated unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo, that was clearly stated in the main vote thread) 0 (binding) Jeffry Houser +1 (non-binding) Carlos Rovira Margo Powell Ben Dalton Jose Barragan Mark Kessler Joao Fernandes Nick Collins Cyrill Zadra Arnoud Bos -1 (non binding) Carlo Velasco (he doesn't see as a polite movement) As Alex stated, we can declare the vote null and start another, as well I emailed Chris Scott and he will email this list exposing his intention of donation. Thanks to all for participating Best, Carlos 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com Hi, here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who open the vote) 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com Hi, seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting vote mail. Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a utilities project it's sure that his release will be separated from flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to start talking about that. So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us know following steps. Thanks 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of specifics in the proposal. Here are the things that are bothering me: 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the other frameworks? 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? Here are the alternatives I could think of: a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and resolve them. Thanks, Om On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other framework if/when those are donated as well. The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa igorco...@gmail.com wrote: A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
really looking forward about this, i have being missing swiz for mobile app development lot so once the donation took place hope there will be new development towards swiz mobile application support Thanks Sumudu On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
You hid your vote well... you did +1 and -1 in two short sentences. Re-reading helped a bit, but - at least for non-native speakers - it was very ambivalent. I think most of your concerns have been addressed in one way or another, or will (must) be addressed during the coming process of donation. Just to clarify any misunderstanding: a -1 vote is only a veto when it concerns a commit and is accompanied by a technical reason for the veto. For all other types of voting, -1 is just a vote against the proposal and will get equal weighing in the final tally. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Sorry Om, your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express something but not state a final vote. Regarding the contrib folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this concrete point. Best 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
So Parsley could find a new home here as well? Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin: The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other framework if/when those are donated as well. The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa igorco...@gmail.com wrote: A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
It certainly could, in my opinion. I think these frameworks enhance Flex and therefor enhance the Apache Flex project. I think there is synergy to be had, both for 'users' and contributors. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: So Parsley could find a new home here as well? Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin: The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other framework if/when those are donated as well. The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa igorco...@gmail.com wrote: A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
My bad for not voting clearly. If you two are confident that we can make a release of Swiz in a reasonable timeframe, I am cool with it. It would bode well for us if we make a blog post making it clear that we support all other frameworks as well. Can someone come up with such a post and put it up for discussion here? Once we have consensus about the content of the blog post, we can publish it. And Erik, I do agree that this is not something that can be vetoed. Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:34 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Sorry Om, your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express something but not state a final vote. Regarding the contrib folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this concrete point. Best 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi Om, I can make the blog post, but we should wait until Chris Scott write the email with his intention of donation. Then we can make the official blog post to make the announcement to the world. And we will put special wording in make clear that this donation should not be seen as giving any special endorsement to swiz in apache flex regarding other projects of the same flavor. 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com My bad for not voting clearly. If you two are confident that we can make a release of Swiz in a reasonable timeframe, I am cool with it. It would bode well for us if we make a blog post making it clear that we support all other frameworks as well. Can someone come up with such a post and put it up for discussion here? Once we have consensus about the content of the blog post, we can publish it. And Erik, I do agree that this is not something that can be vetoed. Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:34 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Sorry Om, your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express something but not state a final vote. Regarding the contrib folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this concrete point. Best 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been addressed. If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo? Thanks, Om On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, Carlos Rovira carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com wrote: Ok Erik, I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc microarquitecture. So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate the source code and wiki Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. Carlos 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Right! why not? :) I don't know too much about parsely but seems it's in the same state that Swiz. If AOP efforts progress all frameworks like swiz and parsley could benefit from the hooks in the compiler to implement it and will need people behind it to make this evolution. I think the only requeriment here is to have people interested in donate time and effort in the donation and subsequent maintenance of the source code... 2013/6/1 dude d...@atheist.com So Parsley could find a new home here as well? Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin: The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other framework if/when those are donated as well. The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa igorco...@gmail.com wrote: A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
What steps are required from the author to make the donation? Since he has moved on to other things, I'd like to bother him as less as possible. Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apache License 2.0. The framework consists of several libraries which can be found here https://github.com/spicefactory . And there is a JIRA: http://opensource.powerflasher.com/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa Am 01.06.2013 22:14, schrieb Carlos Rovira: Right! why not? :) I don't know too much about parsely but seems it's in the same state that Swiz. If AOP efforts progress all frameworks like swiz and parsley could benefit from the hooks in the compiler to implement it and will need people behind it to make this evolution. I think the only requeriment here is to have people interested in donate time and effort in the donation and subsequent maintenance of the source code... 2013/6/1 dude d...@atheist.com So Parsley could find a new home here as well? Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin: The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other framework if/when those are donated as well. The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it. EdB On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa igorco...@gmail.com wrote: A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple have a MVC approach into the SDK. My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather than force you on our perspective way. For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way. We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we should include all of it. For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1. Igor Costa www.igorcosta.com www.igorcosta.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a negative vote. Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, I think. Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation. EdB
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi, What steps are required from the author to make the donation? Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote would also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would allow one framework and not the other. Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apache License 2.0. Do we know if it been under Apache 2.0 from day 1? And if all contributions made to it have been under that license? Does it use any 3rd party software/libraries and if so what are they licences are they under? I don't think there any issues here but just checking. I thing at a minimum we would also have someone who was willing to check all license headers on files (ie run rat), make sure it builds correctly in an apache environment and perhaps someone working with INFRA to transfer the existing JIRA issues. IMO It would also be good if someone (committer or otherwise) was willing to make an initial release, do some maintenance on it, answer user questions on the list etc etc Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
On 6/1/13 7:54 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, What steps are required from the author to make the donation? Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote would also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would allow one framework and not the other. A software grant may be required. It depends on who owns it. FlexUnit came in via software grant, IIRC. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Alex, even if AOP would be added at compiling time, it would be up to the frameworks to leverage it, swiz or other. Regarding -1 votes, I think 2 of them will be solved if swiz is under the utilities and not making it as part of the Flex SDK. The last -1, no reason has been given so Igor will have to elaborate why he's against. On 31 May 2013 17:30, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- João Fernandes
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
The -1 people (3, of whom 2 have a binding vote) have declined to respond to repeated requests for clarification (by both Justin and me). Their previous comments seem to indicate they don't want Swiz to become part of the SDK. The VOTE proposal clearly states: This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. So that excluded Swiz from becoming part of the SDK releases. So: 2 of the three -1 votes seem to be the result of a misunderstanding of the proposal. The name of the repo is secondary and doesn't warrant a new VOTE. To the future of the framework and a potential AOP implementation etc.: as Swiz won't be a part of SDK, it will live it's own life. There will be (IMHO) no requirement for SDK developers to maintain backwards compatibility with it. If someone wants to work on Swiz, they are free to do that. I don't see how a contribution from some committers would translate into an implicit endorsement - or if it does, how that would be a bad thing... If it is, we should stop work on FlexJS for now and get going on VanillaSDK in order to prevent people from thinking we favor one framework over another :-) EdB On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
The thing I don't fully understand is this: Swiz is already licensed under the Apache License ( https://github.com/swiz/swiz-framework/blob/develop/LICENSE ). If people want to contribute, use, or modify then what is stopping them? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help Apache Flex? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help the Swiz framework? I don't have an answer to either. I don't understand why the union is needed; which is why I voted 0. On 5/31/2013 12:30 PM, Alex Harui wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- Jeffry Houser Technical Entrepreneur http://www.jeffryhouser.com 203-379-0773
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
For me, I think the main advantage for both projects is: exposure. EdB On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jeffry Houser jef...@dot-com-it.com wrote: The thing I don't fully understand is this: Swiz is already licensed under the Apache License ( https://github.com/swiz/swiz-framework/blob/develop/LICENSE ). If people want to contribute, use, or modify then what is stopping them? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help Apache Flex? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help the Swiz framework? I don't have an answer to either. I don't understand why the union is needed; which is why I voted 0. On 5/31/2013 12:30 PM, Alex Harui wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- Jeffry Houser Technical Entrepreneur http://www.jeffryhouser.com 203-379-0773 -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
The problem is that there are a few contributors that never got their improvements / bug fixes merged to the project so anyone using swiz is missing those. On 31 May 2013 17:56, Jeffry Houser jef...@dot-com-it.com wrote: The thing I don't fully understand is this: Swiz is already licensed under the Apache License ( https://github.com/swiz/swiz-**framework/blob/develop/LICENSEhttps://github.com/swiz/swiz-framework/blob/develop/LICENSE). If people want to contribute, use, or modify then what is stopping them? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help Apache Flex? How will bringing the Swiz framework into the Apache Flex project help the Swiz framework? I don't have an answer to either. I don't understand why the union is needed; which is why I voted 0. On 5/31/2013 12:30 PM, Alex Harui wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.org**wrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/**jtedmmx5djqen52lhttp://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l ),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- Jeffry Houser Technical Entrepreneur http://www.jeffryhouser.com 203-379-0773 -- João Fernandes
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
If swiz is donated and end up under the utilities, how would it differ from FlexUnit donation? Why would be swiz assumed as the best or supported framework and not FlexUnit? I would welcome any other lib, IoC or not to Apache Flex contrib, if it would make easier to the community to keep it alive and progressing. On 31 May 2013 18:10, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- João Fernandes
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
I was thinking that by being more explicit and proposing a contrib repo that is intended as a warehouse for low-activity items it would help resolve some of these misunderstandings. FlexUnit and the installer in utilities are still more active, IMO. I'm just concerned about wrapping up the vote with this many -1s without finding a way to get those who voted against it into some sort of dialog. On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: The -1 people (3, of whom 2 have a binding vote) have declined to respond to repeated requests for clarification (by both Justin and me). Their previous comments seem to indicate they don't want Swiz to become part of the SDK. The VOTE proposal clearly states: This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. So that excluded Swiz from becoming part of the SDK releases. So: 2 of the three -1 votes seem to be the result of a misunderstanding of the proposal. The name of the repo is secondary and doesn't warrant a new VOTE. To the future of the framework and a potential AOP implementation etc.: as Swiz won't be a part of SDK, it will live it's own life. There will be (IMHO) no requirement for SDK developers to maintain backwards compatibility with it. If someone wants to work on Swiz, they are free to do that. I don't see how a contribution from some committers would translate into an implicit endorsement - or if it does, how that would be a bad thing... If it is, we should stop work on FlexJS for now and get going on VanillaSDK in order to prevent people from thinking we favor one framework over another :-) EdB On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. Points to take into account: * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is what to do with it under Apache Flex umbrella. Please make your vote. Thanks Carlos Rovira -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of specifics in the proposal. Here are the things that are bothering me: 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the other frameworks? 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? Here are the alternatives I could think of: a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and resolve them. Thanks, Om On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex +1 (binding) On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira carlosrov...@apache.orgwrote: After proposal thread (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes the vote thread. This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex community. points to take into account: * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: * There is other frameworks like Swiz out
Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
Hi, seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting vote mail. Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a utilities project it's sure that his release will be separated from flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to start talking about that. So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us know following steps. Thanks 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala bigosma...@gmail.com For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of specifics in the proposal. Here are the things that are bothering me: 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the other frameworks? 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? Here are the alternatives I could think of: a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and resolve them. Thanks, Om On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude d...@atheist.com wrote: Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if that is possible at all). AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland Zwaga). Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're seeing. Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after some discussing with those voting -1? I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own releases and not be part of an SDK release. One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of AOP? Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more love than the other frameworks it could appear to be the endorsed framework, which is what I think we are trying to avoid. -Alex On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, Jeff Tapper j...@spoon.as wrote: -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. -Original Message- From: Greg
