> Case in point - to use Rails, you must do things inn VERY specific
ways.
> Rails is all about convention, and if you don't adhere to its
conventions,
> you will be boned.
Not true. For example, one of the conventions Rails uses to make things
easier is their naming conventions, specifically, pl
Thinking about it again, I think you're right on one point. There's
certainly no reason that using their framework should break native Flash
code. That's just sloppy. But, as it is a framework, I think it's totally
legit that it makes you do certain things certain ways.
I wouldn't say XPCompo
is
sounding in this thread, but still...
-mark hawley
>
> From: "Steven Sacks | BLITZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/29 Thu PM 02:39:22 CDT
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Subject: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
>
> > MM
Thu PM 02:39:22 CDT
> To: "Flashcoders mailing list"
> Subject: RE: [SPAM?] RE: [Flashcoders] XPcomponents set
>
> > MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ?
>
> With the exception of the DRK series of components, MM's components came
> free with Fl
> MM did that as well, did you say scam then too ?
With the exception of the DRK series of components, MM's components came
free with Flash.
And I don't recall any MM components that caused other things to break
in your application. The components themselves were buggy and certain
components did
> I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in
> using frameworks and using them completely.
We have to agree to disagree on this one.
> There are always tradeoffs: adopt the framework, you give some
> things up, but you get others. Depending on their needs, some peop
Steven Sacks | BLITZ schrieb:
I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with
them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys
coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it
doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is gar
"that pretty much no one would buy
their components if they knew ahead of time about this restriction"
I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in using
frameworks and using them completely. Making a viable frmaework that will
integrate nicely with everyone in the world
I don't see why that matters exactly?
Scott
On 29/06/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with
> them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys
> coding a component framework, and one that's
> I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with
> them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys
> coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it
> doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage
> anyways.
It's no
I don't think it's a scam. I gave them a call when I was working with
them and they were amazingly helpful and polite. I think it's 3 guys
coding a component framework, and one that's not too shabby. Sure, it
doesn't work with MM's framework, but who cares? V2 is garbage
anyways.
Scott
On 28/06/
> Maybe a scam is a harsh word
...
> but you don't just forget to mention such a "huge" detail by accident.
I sold you a car that looks fairly new. It will get you from point A to
point B. I forgot to mention that it's not street legal and it runs on
leaded fuel.
What's the word for that?
Thanks for the information all.
The same goes for us ofcourse, if we knew ahead of time that the components
are required to be used in the framework we would have never bought them.
One could say it's wrong of us to assume they'll just work stand-alone but
if the author doesn't mention anything a
> My experience exactly :-(. Perhaps I will be able to use them in a
future
> project, but as for now, money down the drain. Had it been clearly
stated
> on
> the site that the comoponents can't be used stand-alone, I would not
have
> purchased them. Of course, they're non-refundable.
I somehow do
14 matches
Mail list logo
