Re: ERROR MIGRATE FLEX TO APACHE ROYALE

[Alex Harui]

If you are using Windows, have you set the environment variable:

JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8

Alos, the latest nightly build may no longer require that option.

-Alex

On 7/17/19, 3:02 PM, "SmartSoft Ltda"  wrote:

Hi friends, I have error when migrate flex to apache royale. The guide you
use is:

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapache.github.io%2Froyale-docs%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fmigrate-an-existing-app%2Fmigrate-from-flex.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C61ccd44c75e04553654508d70b027c5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636989977614197069sdata=MiQcq53MY5uRgmF0ti3U2Lx5YCVrPJfmPtcOZ5rduos%3Dreserved=0
.

This my source code:

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fns.adobe.com%2Fmxml%2F2009data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C61ccd44c75e04553654508d70b027c5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636989977614197069sdata=%2FzQb9fySLq3jRLxf7M9M66bnX2%2BtSReMSLV6Ykz0k98%3Dreserved=0;
  xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx" minWidth="955" minHeight="600">

  
  
 
 
  
   
  
 

 
  
   
   
   
  
   

 
  
 




   
   


   
  
 

***But, when making the change respective THE ERROR is
out:
**
jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
println
: SEVERE: ERROR - Cannot read file
C:/Users/equipopc/Documents/uno/bin/js-debug/mx/core/Keyboard.js: Failed to
read: C:\Users\equipopc\Documents\uno\bin\js-debug\mx\core\Keyboard.js, is
this input UTF-8 encoded?
:
: jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
println
: SEVERE: ERROR - Cannot read file
C:/Users/equipopc/Documents/uno/bin/js-debug/uno.js: Failed to read:
C:\Users\equipopc\Documents\uno\bin\js-debug\uno.js, is this input UTF-8
encoded?
:
: jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
printSummary
: WARNING: 2 error(s), 0 warning(s)
: 78.257309144 seconds

-- 
*SmartSoft Ltda.*
*Bolívar entre Independencia y Colón*
*Pasaje - El Oro - Ecuador*
*(07) 2 918-102*
*0988613842*
*smartsoftecua...@gmail.com* 
*tecnoinfoec.blogspot.com* 

ERROR MIGRATE FLEX TO APACHE ROYALE

[SmartSoft Ltda]

Hi friends, I have error when migrate flex to apache royale. The guide you
use is:
https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html
.

This my source code:

http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009;
  xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx" minWidth="955" minHeight="600">

  
  
 
 
  
   
  
 

 
  
   
   
   
  
   

 
  
 




   
   


   
  
 

***But, when making the change respective THE ERROR is
out:
**
jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
println
: SEVERE: ERROR - Cannot read file
C:/Users/equipopc/Documents/uno/bin/js-debug/mx/core/Keyboard.js: Failed to
read: C:\Users\equipopc\Documents\uno\bin\js-debug\mx\core\Keyboard.js, is
this input UTF-8 encoded?
:
: jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
println
: SEVERE: ERROR - Cannot read file
C:/Users/equipopc/Documents/uno/bin/js-debug/uno.js: Failed to read:
C:\Users\equipopc\Documents\uno\bin\js-debug\uno.js, is this input UTF-8
encoded?
:
: jul 17, 2019 10:43:20 AM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager
printSummary
: WARNING: 2 error(s), 0 warning(s)
: 78.257309144 seconds

-- 
*SmartSoft Ltda.*
*Bolívar entre Independencia y Colón*
*Pasaje - El Oro - Ecuador*
*(07) 2 918-102*
*0988613842*
*smartsoftecua...@gmail.com* 
*tecnoinfoec.blogspot.com* 

Re: Crux Branch

[Josh Tynjala]

Personally, I don't think it should be named Swiz, and I support a new
name. Crux seems fine to me.

- Josh

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 1:58 AM Carlos Rovira  wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> your concerns about Crux name applies to the others like Basic or Jewel
> (just to name a few). If I search for "Jewel js" in google I get various
> Jewel libraries (same for Basic js). What makes Jewel appropriate for us is
> that is an internal name (internal branding) we use to refer to that
> concrete part of the entire Royale framework, so in then end is not about
> "jewel" for folks here their brain knows that we are talking all the time
> about "Apache Royale Jewel". One more thing we add using this kind of names
> is: 1) Names that has some marketing, and we can create icons, or more (it
> will be hard for me create a icon for FlexJS or SwizRoyale), 2) short names
> with some meaning inside the ecosystem and relation with a set of words
> that shares some meaning root. And moreover, since we changed to Royale
> name we are doing all the things in the same line of action what makes the
> naming decisions in Royale follow a strategy. It would be not consistent to
> come back to older name strategy like FlexJS or SwizRoyale. We should
> follow what we started and continue in that line.
>
> I must say I never thought in MXRoyale and SparkRoyale naming, since it was
> a work in progress that started to grow in Royale progressively and I was
> focused in other parts. For that cases, we could bring other names or not.
> I must say that I didn't take much time to think about it conceptually. We
> could do or not depending on what you want to do in that part.
>
> For Jewel, we didn't thought about it so much. I remember I started with
> other codename, but very soon I renamed and shared to Jewel explaining the
> motivations, thoughts, and meaning of that name. But, we didn't some king
> of name process for it
>
> In the case of Crux. I think it could not be "Crux",I like for the
> shortness and meaning, but could be other better options. What I don't like
> is bring as "Swiz" or "SwizRoyale". The first because is not Swiz (as I
> explained Swiz is for Flex) and SwizRoyale is for me very long and does not
> have a meaning inside of what we are doing with the rest of Royale naming
> decision and marketing (making it very difficult to brand along with the
> rest of Royale parts for marketing and web).
>
> just my 2
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El lun., 15 jul. 2019 a las 6:30, Alex Harui ()
> escribió:
>
> > Regarding naming, giving something a longer more descriptive name can
> also
> > make it harder to use and then folks start using the short name and then
> > there can be confusion again.
> >
> > AIUI, trademark issues are about confusion.  Names like "Basic" and
> > "Jewel" don't appear to have uses that could be confusing.  "Crux"
> appears
> > to be some sort of language thing for Java being brought over to JS, so
> my
> > concern is that someone may someday want Royale to support a Crux library
> > that is based on the Java thing.
> >
> > We are using MXRoyale and SparkRoyale as names for the emulations of
> > Flex's MX and Spark components.  "SwizRoyale" would be consistent,
> > especially if the goal is to emulate Swiz and potentially get more of the
> > Swiz code officially contributed to Apache Royale.  Having renamed lots
> of
> > FlexJS to Royale, I can tell you that renaming still takes time.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 7/12/19, 3:41 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg!
> >
> > great progress with the latest touches.
> >
> > My latest days was in Crux branch so for me is ok to do the merge I
> > think
> > we cover all the things needed like licensing and avoid name
> conflicts.
> > Even we always can improve any of those things over time. So it's ok.
> >
> > About the name: You're right, Apache Royale Crux is like other
> "parts"
> > in
> > Apache Royale, i.e Apache Royale Basic, Apache Royale Jewel, 
> just
> > a
> > convenient name to refer a concrete part of the Apache Royale
> ecosystem
> > with a bit of meaning and other bit of marketing (I plan to create
> some
> > icon for the web in the future as I did with Jewel, and we can do
> some
> > graphics and more when we reach a good point with the actual
> > documentation
> > effort). One important thing for me with the name is to make it
> > different
> > to Swiz to avoid confusion on that part: Swiz is for Flex, while Crux
> > is
> > for Royale. So if people talks about Swiz it will be clear that is
> > about
> > the project for Apache Flex, while if talks about Crux is clear that
> > is for
> > Apache Royale. The same happens at major level with Apache Flex and
> > Apache
> > Royale project.
> >
> > So for me it's all ok.
> >
> > Thanks for the hard work in this regard Greg!
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El vie., 12 jul. 2019 a las 9:31, Piotr Zarzycki (<

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_jsonly #3262

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 


--
[...truncated 1.71 MB...]
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1586):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var currentTestID:String;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1591):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var currentScript:String;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1600):
 col: 5 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var _root:Object;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1605):
 col: 5 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var contextFunction:Function;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1610):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var includeList:Object;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1615):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var excludeList:Object;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1673):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var scriptName:String;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1678):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var testSWF:String;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1683):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var startEvent:String = "applicationComplete";
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1688):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var testCases:Array;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1693):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var lastEvent:Event;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 4.016629 seconds
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1704):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public static var excludedCount:int = 0;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\src\main\royale\UnitTester.as(1979):
 col: 2 public var may not work in minified JS output.  Use getter/setter 
instead.
 [java] 
 [java] public var valueChanged:Boolean;
 [java] ^
 [java] 
 [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms384m -Xmx1g 
 [java] Java Result: 2

main:

basictests-compile-java:
   [delete] Deleting directory 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\target\classes
[mkdir] Created dir: 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\target\classes
[javac] c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\build.xml:1347: warning: 
'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to build.sysclasspath=last; set to 
false for repeatable builds
[javac] Compiling 12 source files to 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly\mustella\target\classes

basictests:

basictests-mustella:

basictests-compile-js:
 [echo] ROYALE_HOME: c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly
 [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly/js
 [echo] GOOG_HOME: 
c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly/js/lib/google/closure-library
[mxmlc] MXMLJSC
[mxmlc] -sdk-js-lib=c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly/mustella/js
[mxmlc] -compiler.debug=true
[mxmlc] +royalelib=c:\jenkins\workspace\royale-asjs_jsonly/frameworks/
[mxmlc] 

Re: Crux Branch

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Definitely I will get back to the discussion whether we are ready or not
for 1.0 once I release 0.9.6.

śr., 17 lip 2019 o 10:36 Carlos Rovira  napisał(a):

> Piotr,
>
> my guess around low adoption by old flex users and new users is that we are
> still behind 1.0 and docs are still on the works.
> When we get to pass that point we'll be able to be more aggressive in
> communication efforts. I mean try to be exposed in publications
> specialized webs, and more. But the key point to do so is when we have
> Royale SDK and NPM publications be super easy to use and most
> people coming does not need too much effort to be up and running with
> royale.
>
> it's like putting a rocket into orbit, everything depends on getting out of
> the stratosphere. I think we are very close to that point, but there are
> still a few months to reach 1.0 and be able to invest time that way. If we
> do it before, we can create the inverse effect on new users.
>
> On the other hand, cases like the one you expose are from people who are
> very outside Flex and do not even follow it. Therefore he does not know
> anything about FlexJS and Royale changes. For that type of people the
> important thing would be that when they search in google for things like
> "apache flex to html" Apache Royale appears directly to them, something
> that does not happen right now. In opposite, If you search "apache flex
> migration" we appear first place thanks to [1]. But maybe that page should
> be revisited to make it behave as a starting point for people reaching to
> Royale.
>
> just my 2
>
> [1]
>
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html
>
>
>
> El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 9:42, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > The reality is showing that since this project exists I don't see any
> > single user who came from JS/.NET/Java world to our framework. Everyone
> who
> > are interested are from Flex/ActionScript world. At the beginning the
> > strategy with name changing was great, but it shows that is not working
> or
> > even worse some people are still lost and don't know that Royale exists -
> > even if they are from Flex world. [1]
> >
> > Crux is a great name, but if there is a word "marketing" attached to this
> > discussion - +1 for Swiz still, cause it takes an attention to us and
> this
> > is exactly what we need. More new fresh blood here which really help us
> > with new features.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Update-for-FlexJS-Falcon-JX-td65654.html
> >
> > śr., 17 lip 2019 o 09:30 Carlos Rovira 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Yishay,
> > >
> > > El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss (<
> yishayj...@hotmail.com
> > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always
> had
> > > In
> > > > mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider
> > > that
> > > > when deciding on a name.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start
> from
> > > scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a
> > > great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes
> from
> > > old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to
> make
> > > something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name
> > (and
> > > concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems
> > > strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not
> > > understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things,
> community
> > > does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both.
> > >
> > > People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other
> > > things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux
> is
> > > what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now
> is
> > > Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears
> > > something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a
> > > ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use
> it
> > > or not...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else
> > does.
> > > I
> > > > don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your
> > > efforts.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations
> > for a
> > > concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it
> > > could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right.
> > My
> > > observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type
> of
> > > effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long
> > time
> > > ago.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr 

Re: Crux Branch

[Carlos Rovira]

Piotr,

my guess around low adoption by old flex users and new users is that we are
still behind 1.0 and docs are still on the works.
When we get to pass that point we'll be able to be more aggressive in
communication efforts. I mean try to be exposed in publications
specialized webs, and more. But the key point to do so is when we have
Royale SDK and NPM publications be super easy to use and most
people coming does not need too much effort to be up and running with
royale.

it's like putting a rocket into orbit, everything depends on getting out of
the stratosphere. I think we are very close to that point, but there are
still a few months to reach 1.0 and be able to invest time that way. If we
do it before, we can create the inverse effect on new users.

On the other hand, cases like the one you expose are from people who are
very outside Flex and do not even follow it. Therefore he does not know
anything about FlexJS and Royale changes. For that type of people the
important thing would be that when they search in google for things like
"apache flex to html" Apache Royale appears directly to them, something
that does not happen right now. In opposite, If you search "apache flex
migration" we appear first place thanks to [1]. But maybe that page should
be revisited to make it behave as a starting point for people reaching to
Royale.

just my 2

[1]
https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html



El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 9:42, Piotr Zarzycki ()
escribió:

> The reality is showing that since this project exists I don't see any
> single user who came from JS/.NET/Java world to our framework. Everyone who
> are interested are from Flex/ActionScript world. At the beginning the
> strategy with name changing was great, but it shows that is not working or
> even worse some people are still lost and don't know that Royale exists -
> even if they are from Flex world. [1]
>
> Crux is a great name, but if there is a word "marketing" attached to this
> discussion - +1 for Swiz still, cause it takes an attention to us and this
> is exactly what we need. More new fresh blood here which really help us
> with new features.
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Update-for-FlexJS-Falcon-JX-td65654.html
>
> śr., 17 lip 2019 o 09:30 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Yishay,
> >
> > El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss ( >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > >
> > > It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always had
> > In
> > > mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider
> > that
> > > when deciding on a name.
> > >
> > >
> > My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start from
> > scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a
> > great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes from
> > old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to make
> > something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name
> (and
> > concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems
> > strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not
> > understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things, community
> > does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both.
> >
> > People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other
> > things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux is
> > what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now is
> > Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears
> > something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a
> > ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use it
> > or not...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else
> does.
> > I
> > > don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your
> > efforts.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations
> for a
> > concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it
> > could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right.
> My
> > observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type of
> > effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long
> time
> > ago.
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>


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

Re: Crux Branch

[Piotr Zarzycki]

The reality is showing that since this project exists I don't see any
single user who came from JS/.NET/Java world to our framework. Everyone who
are interested are from Flex/ActionScript world. At the beginning the
strategy with name changing was great, but it shows that is not working or
even worse some people are still lost and don't know that Royale exists -
even if they are from Flex world. [1]

Crux is a great name, but if there is a word "marketing" attached to this
discussion - +1 for Swiz still, cause it takes an attention to us and this
is exactly what we need. More new fresh blood here which really help us
with new features.

[1]
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Update-for-FlexJS-Falcon-JX-td65654.html

śr., 17 lip 2019 o 09:30 Carlos Rovira  napisał(a):

> Hi Yishay,
>
> El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> >
> > It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always had
> In
> > mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider
> that
> > when deciding on a name.
> >
> >
> My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start from
> scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a
> great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes from
> old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to make
> something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name (and
> concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems
> strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not
> understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things, community
> does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both.
>
> People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other
> things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux is
> what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now is
> Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears
> something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a
> ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use it
> or not...
>
> >
> >
> > I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else does.
> I
> > don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your
> efforts.
> >
>
> Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations for a
> concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it
> could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right. My
> observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type of
> effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long time
> ago.
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*

Re: Crux Branch

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Yishay,

El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

>
> It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always had In
> mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider that
> when deciding on a name.
>
>
My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start from
scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a
great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes from
old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to make
something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name (and
concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems
strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not
understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things, community
does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both.

People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other
things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux is
what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now is
Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears
something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a
ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use it
or not...

>
>
> I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else does. I
> don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your efforts.
>

Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations for a
concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it
could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right. My
observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type of
effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long time
ago.

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

RE: Crux Branch

[Yishay Weiss]

Hi Carlos,


>So for me is something to market with the rest of Royale (strand, beads,
>jewel,...) that we decided together to separate from the marketing of Flex.

It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always had In mind 
to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider that when 
deciding on a name.

>In the end I think is more important to me to know if we (and I in
>concrete) are doing right investing time trying to make website / docs /
>examples / jewel themes ... with a design based on marketing guidelines to
>get some feeling of uniqueness or is useless or not valuable. Maybe I'm
>blinded by what I see and only I see it and in that case it would not make
>any sense so many hours chasing that kind of goal since it'll does not fit
>any community need out there.

I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else does. I 
don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your efforts.

Thanks,
Yishay


El mar., 16 jul. 2019 a las 8:45, Greg Dove ()
escribió:

> Alex,
>
> I think that java framework is unlikely to be important for the same
> reasons you give for 3rd party Basic or Jewel.
> Firstly I don't think it has been widely used.
> Although it is never a perfect assessment, I tend to look at things like
> that by first checking how active they are (commits, issues etc as a
> project) and also how popular they are (in the absence of more stringent
> criteria, this is my same 'rule of thumb' for choosing an npm library these
> days too)
> That project does not appear to be active for at least 3 years (whatever
> type of activity you look at), and has a low star-rating and fork count.
> Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, iiuc that project is more of an
> alternative to Royale than it is something that would be ported to Royale.
> It looks to be a way to write web apps in java with xml-based component
> definitions.
> So (assuming that is correct), I do consider the risk of any confusion here
> is extremely low based on how popular/active it is and also on (my
> understanding of) what it does.
>
> In terms of effort etc...
> I was only vaguely aware of Swiz before I worked with Carlos, I had only
> used PureMVC, Parsley and Robotlegs previously. So I can say outright that
> I approached this without any prior knowledge of Swiz.
> Firstly, for the 'porting' aspect, we are only talking about the volume of
> Swiz-based Flex apps that have not yet been migrated to some other
> platform. We have no way of knowing how many that is. It may not be that
> large, and I think Carlos is thinking more about the value of having 'Crux'
> marketing to support future applications being built with Royale, to help
> drive demand for Royale in general. Carlos will need to confirm that, but
> it was my impression.
> For people who are porting a legacy app, whether someone uses Crux in
> Royale or Swiz in Flex it is essentially the same effort, there is really
> no meaningful impact on the user for the name change, because the
> difference is the configuration at app level, which in Royale is by
> application bead. So I think the name change will have no meaningful impact
> on the porting of any Swiz based Flex apps. I know this in part because I
> already worked on the port of Carlos's original Swiz-based Flex app (it is
> not yet fully ported for Swiz->Crux, and was originally ported to Royale
> with workarounds for anything Swiz-like, but I have since tested services
> setup and login/logout UI flow with Crux using his Royale app to get some
> real-world testing done).
>
> Apart from that, I believe that Swiz originally took inspiration from the
> (java) Spring framework, so (although I never used Spring myself) I
> understand that the general concepts (e.g. 'Beans' which is a core
> concept) and principles for dependency injection and IoC are inspired by
> Spring in the first place.
> My understanding of the main rationale for the name change is for marketing
> purposes, which Carlos is willing to devote time and effort to. It is more
> a focus on the future, in the same way I think that FlexJS became Royale
> even though it is still based on the same thing. If Carlos is prepared to
> do build branding and help create demand for Royale (via 'Crux' in this
> case), then I think we should allow him to do so and trust his judgment on
> this, because of what he has done so far in other ways, and because I think
> he is willing to put more effort in on that aspect than most of us
> (although I can only speak with certainty for myself).
> If Royale is to be successful, it will not be enough to simply 'build it
> and they will come', so I say let him go for it. As long as there are no
> risks with the naming (which so far I think there are not), I don't see any
> downsides here.
> Outside of those points, I can only state that I personally don't mind what
> the name is, although the name 'Crux' has 'grown on me'.
>
> I was planning to merge 'crux' in