Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Ok Alex,

I end with that change for home

best,

Carlos


2018-01-05 2:54 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Yes, looks ok to me.
>
> Thanks for making the changes.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/4/18, 4:05 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >this one is MIT:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fundraw.co
> >%2Fillustrations=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b0
> >8d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650707569897950
> >0=Nr4xo4hIfMGpwSlXX8j82aWqIS8X0tGD9tAIVn4O0fM%3D=0
> >
> >so I think this ok for us right?
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
> >> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
> >>
> >> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >>
> >>> Carlos,
> >>>
> >>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
> >>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this
> >>>topic
> >>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
> >>>help
> >>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
> >>>
> >>> Please?
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>>Rovira"
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Hi Justin,
> >>> >
> >>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the
> >>>website,
> >>> is
> >>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
> >>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
> >>> >that
> >>> >we build.
> >>> >
> >>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
> >>>code,
> >>> >I
> >>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be
> >>>part of
> >>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
> >>>several
> >>> >months or years.
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks
> >>> >
> >>> >Carlos
> >>> >
> >>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
> >>>and
> >>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache
> >>>TLP
> >>> >>web
> >>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss
> >>>to
> >>> >>see
> >>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>> >>
> >>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
> >>> 3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
> >>> 385a14b989b3208
> >>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
> >>> 650679309204496
> >>> >>6=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D=0
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08
> >>d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650707569897950
> >>0=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08d5
> >53d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636507075698979500
> >data=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D=0
>
>


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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Alex Harui]

Yes, looks ok to me.

Thanks for making the changes.

-Alex

On 1/4/18, 4:05 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>this one is MIT: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fundraw.co
>%2Fillustrations=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b0
>8d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650707569897950
>0=Nr4xo4hIfMGpwSlXX8j82aWqIS8X0tGD9tAIVn4O0fM%3D=0
>
>so I think this ok for us right?
>
>
>
>2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
>> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
>>
>> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
>>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this
>>>topic
>>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
>>>help
>>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>>>
>>> Please?
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>>Rovira"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Justin,
>>> >
>>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the
>>>website,
>>> is
>>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>>> >that
>>> >we build.
>>> >
>>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
>>>code,
>>> >I
>>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be
>>>part of
>>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
>>>several
>>> >months or years.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks
>>> >
>>> >Carlos
>>> >
>>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
>>>and
>>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache
>>>TLP
>>> >>web
>>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss
>>>to
>>> >>see
>>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Carlos Rovira
>>> >>
>>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
>>> 3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
>>> 385a14b989b3208
>>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>> 650679309204496
>>> >>6=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D=0
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08
>>d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650707569897950
>>0=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D=0
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08d5
>53d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636507075698979500
>data=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D=0

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

I changed the second to test that sag icons (multiple target and devices)
let me know if it's ok

2018-01-05 1:05 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi Alex,
>
> this one is MIT: https://undraw.co/illustrations
>
> so I think this ok for us right?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
>> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
>>
>> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
>>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
>>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
>>> help
>>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>>>
>>> Please?
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Justin,
>>> >
>>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website,
>>> is
>>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>>> >that
>>> >we build.
>>> >
>>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
>>> code,
>>> >I
>>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part
>>> of
>>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
>>> several
>>> >months or years.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks
>>> >
>>> >Carlos
>>> >
>>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
>>> and
>>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
>>> >>web
>>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
>>> >>see
>>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Carlos Rovira
>>> >>
>>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A
>>> %2F%2Fabout.me%
>>> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
>>> 385a14b989b3208
>>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>> 650679309204496
>>> >>6=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D=0
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
something temporal and I want to replace for other material

2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Carlos,
>
> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might help
> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>
> Please?
> -Alex
>
> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  wrote:
>
> >Hi Justin,
> >
> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
> >that
> >we build.
> >
> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code,
> >I
> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
> >months or years.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :
> >
> >>
> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
> >>web
> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
> >>see
> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ccb76299385a14b989b3208
> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650679309204496
> >>6=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D=0
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>


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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Alex Harui]

Carlos,

Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might help
me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.

Please?
-Alex

On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Justin,
>
>as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
>perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>that
>we build.
>
>In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code,
>I
>think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
>the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
>months or years.
>
>Thanks
>
>Carlos
>
>2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :
>
>>
>> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
>> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
>>web
>> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
>>see
>> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299385a14b989b3208
>>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650679309204496
>>6=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D=0
>>
>>
>>

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Justin,

as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology that
we build.

In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code, I
think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
months or years.

Thanks

Carlos

2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean :

>
> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP web
> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to see
> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Fonts are perfectly legal! They are available in Google Fonts! :)\

Most of the fonts used (e.g. Hind Siliguri, Open Sans Condensed, Oswald, 
Signika and Source Sans Pro) are available from google fonts and under either 
the open font license or the APv2 license so there’s no issue with those.

But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and under a 
GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP web site? I’m not 
sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to see if it’s OK OR 
select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/plugins/movedo-extension/assets/fonts/et-line.woff

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Piotr,

Fonts are perfectly legal! They are available in Google Fonts! :)

I created a Release website thread to get it published ASAP

let's get move on



2018-01-04 12:41 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> If fonts have incompatible license and it looks like it has, we
> unfortunately have to replace it by some other one. If we would like to
> confirm we should raise a jira for Legal.
>
> That's my thoughts. Let's move forward, because that discussion takes too
> long and I don't see any end.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-04 12:37 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > As for your questions:
> >
> > 1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
> > place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can
> put
> > there link to the section with Nightly Build.
> > 2) Nightly build is enough for now.
> >
> > Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> >> Hi Piotr,
> >>
> >> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release.
> For
> >> example:
> >> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> >> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> >> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release,
> so
> >> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> >> point to nothing.
> >>
> >> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right
> now
> >> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to
> get
> >> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> >> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from
> >> that
> >> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at
> all
> >> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
> >>
> >> Is that what we want to do?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> >> NOW,
> >> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with
> NPM
> >> > details can come later on.*
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Olaf,

my global opinion always was that the website is only marketing thing. We
are not releasing it as a product, and that's what apache legal said, so we
should not we worried about it. We are not publishing nothing ilegal, and
with things that we can't use. All is based on WP and a theme that is
licensed (buyed) to do this.

The problem will be if we want to release some code of that website, since
is not "created" by this Royale project.

For that reason is why I'm saying that website is only a tool and not our
main focus.
You Try-it-app is a focus since is an app that covers lots of things: help
people to come to us and try us, is a living example os an App built with
royale, is marketing for us...lots of things involved.

As you said this is only a matter of opinions. I only want to express what
are zones of work where we have sufficient work invested (website) and
other zones that will be critical for many of our users that are not
working (UI Components, themes, styling,...)

That's my opinion, but only that

Thanks



2018-01-03 22:43 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :

>
> > Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
> > et-line font?
>
> Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
> clear [1].
> If this is an issue, maybe we could find a replacement for the icons at
> font
> awesome?
>
> >I would appreciate your
> >help instead of telling me not to work on it.
>
> I'm pretty sure nobody wants to tell anyone what he has to work on.
> But I guess everyone has its own opinion of what is more or less important
> for himself.
> And I think this is pretty ok ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
> [1] https://github.com/pprince/etlinefont-bower
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

2018-01-03 21:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
> Great, so please help us create those parts by telling more about the
> fonts and colors you are using.
>

Hi Alex,

inside the WP admin interface, in theme options you have a font section
where all of you can see what fonts are used for each part (Appearance >
Theme Options > Typography Options )

The two fonts used most of the time are: Hind Siliguri (normal texts) and
Signika (titles, headings, menu,...)


> In order for us to make the other parts look consistent we need to know
> the fonts being used.  The ruler-and-pencil icon appears to be using font
> family "et-line".  Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
> et-line font?
>

http://rhythm.nikadevs.com/content/icons-et-line


>
> IMO, we will get to the first release faster and better with a better site
> that attracts more developers instead of users.
>

IMHO, I think that should not happen, since there's so much involved
but I could be wrong at all, and is only my point of view. I think people
expect
something that looks promising and from there they get passion and
involvement.
But it's difficult to get to that point right now for
non-flex-old-developers.
Hope I'm wrong with this..


> I am not an official spokesperson for Adobe or its business strategies,
> but from my perspective, Adobe is not very interested in traditional web
> applications so a good looking simple example probably isn't going to
> convince them to keep paying me and Peter.  Adobe is way more interested
> in creatives, and in helping these folks create web content and mobile
> applications.  Otherwise, I would think Adobe would be pushing some sort
> of migration solution for its Flex customers.  Also, Adobe has to produce
> a ton of web content itself to market and support its customers.
>

So...we can conclude that Adobe will be happy to pay you both if we get to
something
that delivers good looking graphics...and that's why I'm asking you both to
team
to make UI components more good looking.


>
> That is one reason I put some time into mocking up the Royale website in
> Royale.  I think what might be more interesting to Adobe is showing that
> Royale can help these creatives create web content or help Adobe create
> its web content.  I would like to not spend too much more time on my
> Royale Website POC, so if you can help me bring it closer to looking like
> your WP version of the site by telling me the fonts and colors, then not
> only will we be able to make the other parts of our site like the TryItNow
> and ASDoc look more consistent, but I will have a better story if I need
> to try to convince Adobe that Royale is worth the money they are spending
> on it.  Right now, the POC doesn't look close enough, so it is unlikely to
> be convincing.
>

Hi, I understand your point, but the main problem for me here is that I
think we are missing
the main goal, or maybe the main goal has changed. For me Royale was about
to make
something with the essence of Flex that help to build Applications easily
like we did with Flex in the past.
If the main focus is to make good looking websites, I think that's not the
reason I'm here, since for that
task there's lots of options out there to work HTML sites quick and easy. I
think we don't give value to our
users with that main goal. But again, if that's the global feeling, I'm not
the person how will stop that, but
simply my focus will change since is not interesting to me.


>
> Of course, I could be wrong, but I am always looking for other ways to
> justify my full-time assignment to Apache, and I would appreciate your
> help instead of telling me not to work on it.
>

Alex, we all know that we can do what we want as that's the Apache moto. I
only want to express why
I'm surprised of the paths things are going since I thought our main focus
was to have:

* A good set of tools and languages to make Applications (MXML, AS3,
compilers...)
* A good set of UI Components and controls
* A fast methodology of development (based on most of the Flex knowledge we
get from the past years but with great new
points like Strands/beads, PAYG, and more)

For me to do a website is something collateral that is great in the end, as
a "result", but if I try to put some components
to work and that components still not work or are looking very raw, I think
the final user will not want to use Royale.

Hope you all see this as a constructive critic and to help us to define the
way better. I'm always a democratic person and if
all you think UI Components are less prior that get a website, I'll assume
that. But I think is great to know how global interest are right now
for all people here.

Thanks!



>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> >
> >2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
> >
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it 

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

If fonts have incompatible license and it looks like it has, we
unfortunately have to replace it by some other one. If we would like to
confirm we should raise a jira for Legal.

That's my thoughts. Let's move forward, because that discussion takes too
long and I don't see any end.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:37 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> As for your questions:
>
> 1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
> place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can put
> there link to the section with Nightly Build.
> 2) Nightly build is enough for now.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
>> example:
>> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
>> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
>> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
>> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
>> point to nothing.
>>
>> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
>> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
>> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
>> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from
>> that
>> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
>> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>>
>> Is that what we want to do?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>>
>> >
>> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
>> NOW,
>> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
>> > details can come later on.*
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

As for your questions:

1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can put
there link to the section with Nightly Build.
2) Nightly build is enough for now.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi Piotr,
>
> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
> example:
> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> point to nothing.
>
> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from that
> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>
> Is that what we want to do?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> >
> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> NOW,
> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
> > details can come later on.*
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Carlos,

During past 4 weeks I have sent link to nightly build of Royale at least 20
times to several people. :) Yes for me it is worth to have website right
now.

I'm not sure what do you mean that people can't use Royale at all. Yes they
can - I'm working every day on my examples using Nightly build. Is there
are bugs - of course they are, but if you follow all discussion we are
resolving it immediately.

One of the example is problems with Remove/Add items to list - Peter and me
have pushed many fixes there and now you can use those List nicely.

What will change once you release 0.9.0 ? In my opinion if it happen in the
next 2 weeks - Not too much in the code, unless during my work on examples
I will find some ugly bugs and fix them in the framework. Unless Harbs or
Yishay find some ugly bugs in their production app and fix that in them
framework. - Hey that's the thing - We need more people here which are
working full time, part time, but every day on Royale.

You were talking about styling things and having new nice looking Royale
components - Please put together UX requirements, post it on Royale Dev
list and I will start working on that ASAP.

Let's make Royale website online.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi Piotr,
>
> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
> example:
> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> point to nothing.
>
> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from that
> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>
> Is that what we want to do?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> >
> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> NOW,
> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
> > details can come later on.*
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
> clear [1].

It’s reasonably clear that it's GPL as I said the other day. See [1] (see point 
6 under registration) and [2] which states "As always, these icons are 
completely free to use, and have been released under the GPL.”.

Remember just because something it’s free and open source doesn’t mean it’s 
comparable with the ALv2.[3][4] GPL is one such license. [4]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.elegantthemes.com/policy/service/
2. https://www.elegantthemes.com/blog/freebie-of-the-week/free-line-style-icons
3. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
4. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Olaf Krueger]

> Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source 
> et-line font? 

Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
clear [1].
If this is an issue, maybe we could find a replacement for the icons at font
awesome?

>I would appreciate your 
>help instead of telling me not to work on it. 

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to tell anyone what he has to work on.
But I guess everyone has its own opinion of what is more or less important
for himself.
And I think this is pretty ok ;-)

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] https://github.com/pprince/etlinefont-bower



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Alex Harui]

On 1/3/18, 6:50 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
>website done with royale is sufficient.

Great, so please help us create those parts by telling more about the
fonts and colors you are using.
>
>@Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
>icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
>nothing that you should waste your valuable time.

In order for us to make the other parts look consistent we need to know
the fonts being used.  The ruler-and-pencil icon appears to be using font
family "et-line".  Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
et-line font?
>
>As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
>push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.

IMO, we will get to the first release faster and better with a better site
that attracts more developers instead of users.
>
>Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
>What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
>Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
>Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
>anytime anywhere.

I am not an official spokesperson for Adobe or its business strategies,
but from my perspective, Adobe is not very interested in traditional web
applications so a good looking simple example probably isn't going to
convince them to keep paying me and Peter.  Adobe is way more interested
in creatives, and in helping these folks create web content and mobile
applications.  Otherwise, I would think Adobe would be pushing some sort
of migration solution for its Flex customers.  Also, Adobe has to produce
a ton of web content itself to market and support its customers.

That is one reason I put some time into mocking up the Royale website in
Royale.  I think what might be more interesting to Adobe is showing that
Royale can help these creatives create web content or help Adobe create
its web content.  I would like to not spend too much more time on my
Royale Website POC, so if you can help me bring it closer to looking like
your WP version of the site by telling me the fonts and colors, then not
only will we be able to make the other parts of our site like the TryItNow
and ASDoc look more consistent, but I will have a better story if I need
to try to convince Adobe that Royale is worth the money they are spending
on it.  Right now, the POC doesn't look close enough, so it is unlikely to
be convincing.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I am always looking for other ways to
justify my full-time assignment to Apache, and I would appreciate your
help instead of telling me not to work on it.

Thanks,
-Alex
>
>2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
>> really
>> > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
>> > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2,
>>etc.
>> >
>> > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
>> stuff
>> > and the developer experience but I think we should address those
>>things
>> to
>> > the first major release 1.0.0.
>> > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with
>>exploring
>> > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
>> > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
>> development...
>> > but also ready for building apps.
>> >
>> > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
>> > version is released.
>> > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
>> posts
>> > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
>> > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
>> don't
>> > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to
>>find a
>> > appropriate Royale version.
>> >
>> > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app
>>using
>> > Royale.
>> > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a
>>nice
>> > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
>> > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is
>>implemented
>> by
>> > using Royale at least.
>> >
>> > Just my 2 cents,
>> > Olaf
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from: 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>>%7Cd8b185e854b74ee1fdd908d552b9681b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Carlos,

2018-01-03 15:50 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
> website done with royale is sufficient.
>
> @Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
> icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
> nothing that you should waste your valuable time.
>



> As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
> push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.
>
>
*I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published NOW,
without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
details can come later on.*



> Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
> What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
> Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
> Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
> anytime anywhere.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
>
> > I agree.
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
> > really
> > > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> > > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2,
> etc.
> > >
> > > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
> > stuff
> > > and the developer experience but I think we should address those things
> > to
> > > the first major release 1.0.0.
> > > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with
> exploring
> > > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> > > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
> > development...
> > > but also ready for building apps.
> > >
> > > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> > > version is released.
> > > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
> > posts
> > > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> > > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
> > don't
> > > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to
> find a
> > > appropriate Royale version.
> > >
> > > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app
> using
> > > Royale.
> > > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a
> nice
> > > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> > > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is
> implemented
> > by
> > > using Royale at least.
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents,
> > > Olaf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
website done with royale is sufficient.

@Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
nothing that you should waste your valuable time.

As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.

Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
anytime anywhere.

Carlos



2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :

> I agree.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
> really
> > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc.
> >
> > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
> stuff
> > and the developer experience but I think we should address those things
> to
> > the first major release 1.0.0.
> > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with exploring
> > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
> development...
> > but also ready for building apps.
> >
> > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> > version is released.
> > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
> posts
> > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
> don't
> > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to find a
> > appropriate Royale version.
> >
> > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app using
> > Royale.
> > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a nice
> > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is implemented
> by
> > using Royale at least.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>
>


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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi,
I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be really
helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc.

I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing stuff
and the developer experience but I think we should address those things to
the first major release 1.0.0.
I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with exploring
Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under development...
but also ready for building apps.

AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
version is released.
And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those posts
are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale don't
want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to find a
appropriate Royale version.

I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app using
Royale.
I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a nice
look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is implemented by
using Royale at least.

Just my 2 cents,
Olaf








--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

I really like doing things and moving forward.

I see only one problem in case of website which has been raised - License.
If you guys figure out whether problematic stuff is ok, we should export
and public that website now. There is no point to wait, building new one
using Royale can always happen later.

I think in Royale you can now build a lot of things, even with that Basic
stuff. It may take a bit more time, but definitely we will be able to have
nice looking, readable and productive for extend that code.

I think we need users who will work on Royale if not for a full time at
least half time. This should be our goal and I believe website is one of
the point to make it happen.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-02 19:34 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
>
> On 1/2/18, 9:48 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >Please explain what is ET-Line, I don't know what you refer with that.
> >The fonts used are from Google Fonts, so I think there's no problem at all
> >since is what 99% of the sites use today.
> >Colors as well are impossible to be keep by a license, and I used what I
> >thought was right to me. So that's my work.
>
> When I go to [1], where it says "Enterprise Class Level" there is an icon
> with a rule and a pencil.  What icons or icon font is that?
>
> [1] http://royale.codeoscopic.com
> >
> >In the end, think that a site "face" use to fresh for some time (maybe a
> >couple of years?), so the other point to not worry about this is
> >that if we get the rest done a people come, we'll need to go back a make a
> >new "fresh" version of the site that will rework all that is done.
> >And mostly maybe only a few part will remain beyond content (maybe 10%?).
> >
> >So if we use the current site, we hace 1-2 year to focus on what's
> >important and then with a robust tech, come back to the site and rework it
> >in MXML-AS3
> >
> >About incremental. I'm with you, but with a minimum state. I think we
> >still
> >don't have the minimum to make incremental work. As I said you, people
> >coming to us right now will find they can't make an raw app with what we
> >have and so, they will be unhappy users telling other users that Royale
> >doesn't work or something like that. That's my fear right now.
>
> Carlos, Adobe may not pay me and/or Peter to work on Royale full time for
> another 1 or 2 years.  I don't see how we will get to any minimum state by
> not recruiting more folks like Harbs, Yishay, Josh, and Piotr.  Folks who
> understand how to work on the bleeding-edge of development.  We can only
> do little bits of improvement at a time.  There is no team even 10% of the
> size of the Adobe Flex team to get a ton of code done and then release it.
>  If you think otherwise, then prove it to me by getting people to get a
> ton of code done.
> >
> >For Adobe, to sell Royale, I think will be easy if we build a basic app
> >that looks pretty good. Adobe likes things done simple with good graphics.
> >And that's what many of us wants since right now Royale produces ugly
> >interfaces. Don't you think that's a great goal for many of us?
>
> I think you are still in the Adobe Flex mindset of traditional product
> development and marketing.  If so, that needs to change.  Adobe will not
> sell Royale.  Royale is free open source.  Thus Adobe is generously
> donating Peter and me to Royale.  They could change their minds at any
> time.  It is a donation and not a long-term strategic investment and
> probably never will be.  My goal is to show Adobe that they can save money
> (not make money) and have happier customers by using Royale to produce
> their web applications and mobile applications.  And maybe save money
> producing web content as well, which is why I want to show that we can
> produce the Royale site in Royale.  That way they may continue to donate
> Peter and I to Royale.
>
> If you think what Royale produces today is ugly, then help us make it
> better, by doing the work yourself, or tweaking our site to try to attract
> a few more folks like our current committers, and/or producing a sample
> app and telling us what you don't like about it.  Our current site at
> royale.apache.org is not helping to attract folks, IMO.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex and all, And first of all Happy new year to all of you! Hope 2018
be a great year for all of you! :)



2017-12-30 8:50 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
> I agree with what you say.  What I am suggesting is making enough changes
> to the site to attract people who can help us create a "most usable
> product".  I don't think we have enough people to do that as fast as I'd
> like, so I'd rather tweak what you have to do what I see in many shopping
> centers:  a sign goes up saying that Store XX is coming soon and they are
> hiring.  Only later does that sign come down and they have a grand
> opening.  Similarly, I would like to tweak enough of what you have to say
> that we need "pioneers" and folks who like the bleeding-edge.  Even one or
> two more folks who can work well with others would be great.  I haven't
> gone through every page you've done, but on the main page, I think we only
> need to change the NPM section in some way.
>

IMHO, and talking about my experience with my own business and other stuff
I tried to build and market in my professional life:
making noise of a product that is not enough mature, use to result in a
very bad strategy that make the opposite effect and make
people run away from it instead of buy or adopting it.

So, my plan would be to focus in make Royale do what people coming would
expect to do, and maybe here is where we have some
discrepancies on what we are trying to achieve.

So don't worry now about website. It only needs some tweaks, and little
work to make it ready to publish.
We need to talk about things in Royale plan itself.



> One reason for my mockup of the website in MXML was to make sure folks
> truly understood the power of the extensible component model for Royale.
> You are still focused on traditional interactive Applications, and I agree
> that migrating Flex apps is a key market for us, but you also seemed to be
> interested in folks creating new projects, and I wanted to illustrate that
> Royale, with MXML and an extensible component model can be a benefit there
> too.  I may be crazy, but I believe that Royale can be useful in many more
> places than what folks think of as traditional Applications.  I still
> think we want to use Royale to produce our web site some day (which
> doesn't have to be now).
>

I agree. I believe Royale could have a target far more open that Flex has,
but I think we have here a warning:
people coming to Royale will not search for a tool to make website on the
first term. They will come to make
things in HTML like they produced with Flex (or Angular, or something
similar). But if they succeed, they will
want to use Royale for all other things. So focusing on something that is
still not the min focus is a mistake for me.
We should focus in make Applications as easy as we did with Flex, and that
is not happening right now.
I tried to start building an App with Royale for the theme feature and get
stuck as I started with Slider (I still couldn't
get back to it and see Peter's changes). So that's for me where we are
failing. We need to have components that work.
And right now as we start working, things are still not working. That's my
main point. If I want to start working in styling and
Theming but the basic components are not working, think in people coming to
us for the first time...Hope you could
figure their opinion about Royale although we have a great and good looking
website, or even if we can build some
basic website. They simply will gone since what they expect to get out of
the box is not working.



>
> In mocking up the site, I realized there might be content in your proposed
> site that is not ALv2 compatible, so I am suggesting changing that now,
> otherwise, it may be much more noticeable the day we want to cut over to
> the Royale version of the site, since the Royale version will probably
> have to release-able as an Apache release.


> I'm in no hurry to switch over to the Royale version of the site.  I just
> want us to take a few minutes here and there to continuously improve it.
> I still don't know where the line is between theme and content, but if the
> colors and fonts aren't part of the theme and you can tell us what you
> used, we can make sure the fonts will be ALv2 compatible and the Royale
> mockup will look a little better.
>

That's what I want to said that we have no problem at all with licenses on
the site.
If you read the ticket we created with legal they express full support of
our website in the current
state, so we can publish it and have it as long as we need. And when we
reach the point
where we can change to a Royale website we can do that (tomorrow or 5 years
in the future).
For that reason, don't worry about this and go with the things that our
users really wants for us


>
> Meanwhile, you've been saying for a few months now that you want a better
> UI set, but really, I have no idea what work needs to be done when you say
> that.  I don't doubt that there 

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Alex Harui]

Couple of thoughts:

1) Should we alter what Carlos has in some way so that we can put a copy
of it up on royale.a.o now and update it again after the first Royale
release?  I would rather have a nicer site now that has links to useful
things.  If a better site can bring in more folks between now and the
release, that would be worth it to me.  Right now what is on royale.a.o is
not attractive.  For example, if we're concerned about the "NPM" section
not being final, can we grey it out and overlay just that section with a
"Coming Soon..." stamp?

2) If we plan to use Royale to generate the site "some day", I think we
should be investing bits of time now to try to replicate it with MXML.  My
logic is that the version we generate from MXML probably has to be fully
ALv2 compatible, and in trying to emulate what Carlos has, I found that
there might be an issue with using ET-Line fonts.  If we can't use ET-Line
in the MXML version, maybe we shouldn't use it in Carlos's version as then
it will look different the day we want to cut over to the MXML version.
I'm still not clear on where the line is between the Theme and Content,
but if the choice of fonts and colors are not part of the theme it would
be nice to know what those are so they can be plugged into the MXML
example, and if other fonts are not ALv2 (or System Fonts) we need to make
sure we have a good reason to use those fonts.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 12/22/17, 3:32 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>Many things to cover here, I agree with some and not with others:
>
>* About the MXML initiative to search a way for more productive HTML
>layouts, that's very cool.
>* The repetition in HTML as you said is so cumbersome. The way Flex always
>handled that was through components, dataproviders, item renderers, and
>so
>on. That's what I expect from flex if I want to use it to make an app or
>website.
>* -Is this useful? Totally , Is what this project is about and for that
>reason in MDL set Piotr and I was searching for tablet or list component
>that use data provider, itemrenderer, etc.. without that royale lost its
>value and other solutions like Angular or React wins...is what we can
>offer
>in the end!
>* About creating website in this way: We are not there yet, and moreover,
>people like me don't want that right now. We need a usable UI Set as our
>first need to enter Royale. This is IMHO critical to understand and we
>should focus on that to allow people get interest in royale. We need
>Button, List, Slider, DropBox and more working as a flex component with
>ease to change style with theming, forms, validations and more. I think
>that is more important since is what we'll make people join us.
> About website: We are not waiting anything more for infra. We have green
>light to publish the actual website. Right now the reason is not published
>yet is: 1) the need of a Royale first release to update the actual info to
>match the final versions (to avoid users confusion) and 2) but not as
>important end content for home and feature pages.
>* About page speed: You all know that actual WP site is not for
>production,
>we will click and export button and we'll get the static and faster site
>with same look and feel and anims we have right now, and that static
>html+js+css code will be pushed to royale.apache.org.
>
>All of you that have admin access to the WP instance in codeoscopic can
>try
>to push the button to generate the actual static site and check the faster
>performance:
>Go to "Simply Static" > "Generate" and push "Generate Static Files"
>button.
>And you'll get the static version, that's all.
>
>As I said hope to come back with a re-read of the thread.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Carlos
>
>
>
>
>2017-12-22 11:56 GMT+01:00 yishayw :
>
>> I also think this is a great initiative. Regarding SEO there are some
>> optimizations that can be applied to single page apps as well so maybe
>>it's
>> worth testing that before we convert it to a multipage. I'm not in
>>front of
>> the computer but when I am I'll share the links I read, if there's
>>interest
>> in that.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>>%7C0c8e1d7c609a4c0810b008d5492fc3ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C
>>0%7C0%7C636495391855077249=83QYF%2BYDtSiah5FVUviIpnEBOtCg7fotOuBsfA
>>9P1CQ%3D=0
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0c8e1d7c609a4c0810b008d5
>492fc3ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636495391855077249
>data=8uHDHzoFJuioCqoyoOUw8TYKL8Ngthwjm3QyKpTSOzk%3D=0

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[yishayw]

I also think this is a great initiative. Regarding SEO there are some
optimizations that can be applied to single page apps as well so maybe it's
worth testing that before we convert it to a multipage. I'm not in front of
the computer but when I am I'll share the links I read, if there's interest
in that.



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Harbs]

FYI, with cache enabled the page load was so fast that there was no noticeable 
browser redraw! I’m blown away by the performance!

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Harbs  wrote:
> 
> 2. The speed that the page loaded is incredible. First draw was less than a 
> second and fully loaded was less than 2 seconds — with cache disabled.

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Harbs]

Some thoughts:

1. This is a great initiative!
2. The speed that the page loaded is incredible. First draw was less than a 
second and fully loaded was less than 2 seconds — with cache disabled.
3. Ultimately I think this is the way we want to go, but getting the polish on 
this right will take a significant effort. It might make sense to initially use 
the version exported from Wordpress and only later swap it to a Royale version.
4. I’m not sure how I feel about including RoyaleSite in projects.
5. I like the organization of the page and the “web components”. I think it’s a 
real proof of concept that MXML can be used for structure and re-usable pieces 
simplified.
6. Multiple pages is the sticky point here. We definitely could make each page 
a separate project, but I would really like if we would have a better story for 
multiple pages. Initially we could have post-build scripts to copy the assets 
to the correct structure to make it easy to deploy.

Longer term plans for multiple pages I think requires handling two difference 
scenarios:
1. Page routing/deep linking. This is necessary for two things:
  a) Loading an app in a specific initial state.
  b) switching to new “pages” in apps where the vast majority of content is 
shared across pages and/or there are transitions between pages.
2. Allowing compiling multiple “pages” in a single project. Here’s some 
thoughts on how it may work:
  a) mxml pages should be specify-able to the compiler as “pages” which would 
be output as separate html pages with linked JS files. This could be either 
output to separate folders with index.html files for each, or all to a single 
folder with differently named html files.
  b) Not sure whether CSS files should be shared across multiple pages or not.
  c) It would be great to have an option to have shared code loaded as modules 
so it could be cached. I’m not sure how this would be specified. Maybe 
including a JS file which includes all Framework code used across all pages? 
Framework code could be defined by anything included in a swc. Maybe compiler 
options to specify which swcs would be “modules” and which would be hard-linked 
into application code? Not sure…

Either way, I think the Royale site falls more into the second category than 
the first.

My $0.02,
Harbs

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> First, thanks to Carlos for all of the work he's been putting into the
> future Royale web site.
> 
> While waiting on something from Infra, I decided to try to approximate the
> home page that Carlos has been working on [1].  I wanted to do so for the
> following reasons:
> -try to eliminate the dependency on commercial and paid-for resources
> -try to make the source for the site available to more people so that
> Carlos doesn't have the pressure of us waiting on him
> -try to carve out reusable pieces of the look-and-feel for use elsewhere,
> like our ASDoc pages and maybe Olaf's Try-It-Now app.
> 
> My crude approximation is here: [2]
> Source is in Git here [3].
> 
> [1] http://royale.codeoscopic.com
> [2] http://home.apache.org/~aharui/RoyaleWebsite/html/
> [3] 
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/royalesite/examples/roya
> le/RoyaleWebsite/src/html
> 
> There are no cool animations, the colors aren't quite right nor is the
> spacing, but it is a start.  I replaced the ET-Line fonts with FontAwesome
> so I had to choose some different graphics.
> 
> Anyway, putting this together got me thinking about Royale and our
> extensible component model.  Royale is all about productivity.  And to me,
> one irritating thing about working with native HTML is the duplication of
> tags.  If you look at the source in [3], I had to copy sets of tags and
> update the content inside without accidentally deleting a tag or quote or
> something.  IMO, the whole point of Royale is to allow anybody to improve
> productivity by eliminating duplication and reduce maintenance costs.  The
> idea is that any repeating pattern of HTML tags should be encapsulated
> into a Royale component.
> 
> So, I spent a couple of days doing that.  I created components for the
> repeating patterns I had to use to create [2].  For example, I created a
> ResponsiveTableTile that represents the six tiles in the middle of [1],
> and created a TitledAnchorList to encapsulate the links at the bottom of
> [1] and created a few other components as well.  I also modified the HTML
> set and the compiler to allow nested HTML components in a more "natural"
> way.
> 
> The result is at [4]. It is the debug version so it takes a bit to load.
> The MXML is at [5].  You can compare it to [3].
> The components and example are checked into a feature/royalesite branch
> 
> [4] http://home.apache.org/~aharui/RoyaleWebsite/royale/
> [5] 
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/feature/royalesite/examples/roya
> le/RoyaleWebsite/src/main/royale/RoyaleWebsite.mxml
> 
> IMO, components are almost 

About website actual work in progress

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

just want to say that I was the past weeks with heavy work load. For the
website I think most of the informative pages are done, and in my point of
view the pages that needs more work are HOME and FEATURE.

But, in the other hand, we need to make a first release to put some valid
info in the website, for example NPM, GETTING STARTED,...

So, in the end website is dependent of the first release of Royale to be
published. I think as Royale gets a first release that will unchain the
final work on website

Thanks

Carlos

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