Hi Paul, many years ago I must say that was completely true, for that reason I started trying to introduce in my clients and projects Flash and AMF in early 2000, first with Flash authoring tool, then with MTASC (someone remember it? ;)), and then Flex was really what we just needed. That was very disruptive compared with the html/js/css stack at that time.
Currently that's not true. Near 2020, js is like the bytecode in Flash and Royale is the current Flex. So it's clear that you don't need to go very "low level", but if you needed, you can do it! (and that's good). But Royale should allow you to develop without the need to go that route. and just use good proven patterns like Flex did. We're working towards that...and I think we're already got it. :) About GUI IDE, although I think is something very cool to have something like that, I abandoned that kind of tools many years ago. Maybe in the future I could be working in something like that, just for pleasure, but for now there's still many work to do in Royale in things more needed. Maybe others could drive that effort... But I really think the current Royale coding is very straight forward to do. As well examples like Tour De Jewel has a lot of code to see how things should be used and learn from it a lot of good practices. El lun., 9 mar. 2020 a las 22:48, Paul Stearns (<pa...@compuace.com.invalid>) escribió: > What attracted me to Flex initially was that it ran in its own > environment, completely separate from the html, web browser and their > multitude of DOMs. I used to write apps in ASP/HTML, and every other week a > new version of a browser would break something. > > For the type of applications I write & support, having a GUI IDE, a > defined language (like as3 & mxml) and an engine which which provides > consistent results across platforms are the most important features. At > this point the weakness I see in Royale is there isn't a GUI IDE, and since > it doesn't have its own engine, it relies on the vicissitudes of javascript > and how the particular browser it is running in implements its DOM. > > This is why I shied away from .NET, and PHP in the past except for more > traditional websites with a bit of user interaction. Javascript frameworks > just hide the ugliness, they don't make it go away. > > Having said all of the above, I am taking a chance on Royale to see what > the level of effort will be to convert to it. > > Paul R. Stearns > Advanced Consulting Enterprises, Inc. > > 15280 NW 79th Ct. > Suite 250 > Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 > > Voice: (305)623-0360 x107 > Fax: (305)623-4588 > > ---------------------------------------- > From: Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > Sent: 3/9/20 4:55 PM > To: Paul Stearns <pa...@compuace.com> > Cc: users@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Spam] :Re: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > Hi Paul, > > I suppose you refer to Java Applets, hope other could give more info about > this, but although you're in part right, I think Flash Player is more well > integrated in Browsers and Applets never had the power of Flash. But it's > ok, you can enable in browsers... anyway, we 're in 2020 and seems things > will continue its course, so nothing we can do to revert that. > > I always be a great advocate of the Flash platform, but I found in Royale > something better that what we had with Flash. IMHO, we have the best of > both worlds. From Flex/Flash I wanted the "development productivity", > languages (AS3, MXML), compiler, AMF, and many other things. From web I > always liked things like CSS (that's far superior than what we had in Flex > for sure), and the fact that we are not constraint to a plugin and a > sandbox, so it's more easy to do things for the web. > > We have both combined now in Royale, and that's for me amazing. As we get > components with clear API definitions, and access to latest browsers > features, we are getting the same productivity that we had in Flex, and as > well we are removing the complexity in Browsers where you need to test in > each browsers or lost time solving browser compatibility problems. We > finally can have things like IoC (Inversion of Control), DI (Dependency > Injection), Metadata, MXML, Routing (Deep Linking), LocalStorage (like old > Local SharedObject), just to name a few. > > But even more, since the bead/strand Arquitecture is really powerful, and > Apps build with royale are more easy to build that even was in Royale. And > the most important: Performance: The apps built with Royale has an > outstanding performance. Apps migrated from Flex use to be many XX% faster > in Royale. > > I must say, I'm very happy with what we're getting with Apache Royale :) > > Carlos > > El lun., 9 mar. 2020 a las 20:46, Paul Stearns () > escribió: > > > I am investing Royale, but haven't seen any results yet. > > > > I am showing my ignorance here, but, my confusion is, will Java still be > > deployable via web browsers? If so, what is the difference between using > a > > web browser to deploy a Java app, and a Flash app? > > > > Why couldn't Adobe/Harmon changed Flash to use the methodology Flash uses > > for deployment? > > > > Paul R. Stearns > > Advanced Consulting Enterprises, Inc. > > > > 15280 NW 79th Ct. > > Suite 250 > > Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 > > > > Voice: (305)623-0360 x107 > > Fax: (305)623-4588 > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From*: Carlos Rovira > > *Sent*: 3/9/20 3:31 PM > > *To*: users@flex.apache.org, Paul Stearns > > *Subject*: [Spam] :Re: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > > Hi Paul, > > > > must say don't know what's the actual support of Adobe for Flash Player, > > or if it will left to Harman as part of the AIR deal, maybe Andrew can > give > > some light on this. Since Flash will be just present on AIR, and not in > any > > other place, that could have sense. But that will mean more maintenance > > effort and people needed by Harman. > > > > Anyway, donating to Apache has no sense at all, since Flash Player has > > many licensed closed source parts that can't be open source, or at least > > that's what they always says. But again...donating Flash Player and > making > > it OS, if it could be something doable at some point (let's go utopic ;), > > does not change anything, since Browser vendors are closing plugin doors. > > So even in that case, it continue to be a death end. > > > > I think Apache Royale is this days in a very good shape, and is better > > each day... so I maybe people should give a try and consider it as an > > option for the future. > > > > Thanks > > > > El lun., 9 mar. 2020 a las 20:04, Paul Stearns () > > escribió: > > > >> Has Adobe stopped supporting it, and has not turned it over to Apache? > >> Now that is just unconscionable. > >> > >> Paul R. Stearns > >> Advanced Consulting Enterprises, Inc. > >> > >> 15280 NW 79th Ct. > >> Suite 250 > >> Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 > >> > >> Voice: (305)623-0360 x107 > >> Fax: (305)623-4588 > >> > >> ---------------------------------------- > >> From: Carlos Rovira > >> Sent: 3/9/20 1:28 PM > >> To: users@flex.apache.org, Paul Stearns > >> Subject: Re: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > >> Hi Paul, > >> > >> not bad idea, but don't know a browser that will support Flash, and the > >> problem is Adobe is stopping supporting flash player as a plugin, so I'm > >> afraid that's not possible. > >> > >> El lun., 9 mar. 2020 a las 17:40, Paul Stearns () > >> escribió: > >> > >> > Better yet, how about supporting a browser whose main feature is the > >> > support of Flex? > >> > > >> > My applications are 99.9% flex. The main things I use the browser for > is > >> > application deployment, file upload/download and displaying PDF > files.. > >> > > >> > Paul R. Stearns > >> > Advanced Consulting Enterprises, Inc. > >> > > >> > 15280 NW 79th Ct. > >> > Suite 250 > >> > Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 > >> > > >> > Voice: (305)623-0360 x107 > >> > Fax: (305)623-4588 > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> > From: Carlos Rovira > >> > Sent: 3/9/20 10:09 AM > >> > To: users@flex.apache.org > >> > Subject: Re: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > >> > Hi Andrew, > >> > > >> > When Dec, 31th arrives, Flex will be out of browsers, so just allowed > >> using > >> > AIR. Maybe AIR could have an option to bundle Apache Flex with each > >> version > >> > that ensures all work right. I mean, in 2021, Apache Flex will not > have > >> > sense with AIR right? so why not to think in something that ease even > >> more > >> > AIR+Flex marriage? Of course a version without Flex should have sense > >> too > >> > for people that does not use Flex at all. > >> > > >> > Make that sense? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > Carlos > >> > > >> > El lun., 9 mar. 2020 a las 14:45, Frost, Andrew () > >> > escribió: > >> > > >> > > Hi > >> > > > >> > > We'd be happy to add things like this geometry API change - but it's > >> then > >> > > going to be version-dependent so it would need to be compiled > against > >> the > >> > > later AIR SDK and would only run on the later AIR runtime.. > >> > > > >> > > I'm not sure whether there are other changes that would really > impact > >> the > >> > > Flex SDK itself. So perhaps we can consider these on a case-by-case > >> > basis. > >> > > > >> > > The one thing I keep coming back to though, is that it seems to be a > >> very > >> > > painful process for (a) people to download and start using a new AIR > >> SDK, > >> > > and (b) people who then have to combine a Flex SDK with an AIR SDK! > >> So we > >> > > should perhaps address this in the first instance (and from our QA > >> folk, > >> > > having a simple way to ensure you get back to a clean version of > >> one/both > >> > > of these SDKs would be good too!) > >> > > > >> > > Any other thoughts on missing features or things that would be > useful, > >> > > please send them in! > >> > > > >> > > thanks > >> > > > >> > > Andrew > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Piotr Zarzycki > >> > > Sent: 09 March 2020 13:01 > >> > > To: users@flex.apache.org > >> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > >> > > > >> > > Hi Andrew, > >> > > > >> > > This kind of situation may occur more often in the future if Air > would > >> > > have more and more features. Is there any plan to someone from your > >> Team > >> > > simply add missing stuff to Flex? Any thoughts on this approach? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Piotr > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 1:49 PM Frost, Andrew > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Olaf > >> > > > > >> > > > > I think it would be nice if any AIR updates would be compatible > >> with > >> > > > > the > >> > > > latest Flex SDK > >> > > > Yes completely agree, this was an error on our part to not > consider > >> > > > the fact that overrides of the APIs that we were changing would > have > >> > > > been affected. The changes were reverted, and we have > re-implemented > >> > > > the new functionality within additional APIs/methods so that > >> existing > >> > > > apps will now compile/run without any changes on the 33.1.1.63 > >> release. > >> > > > > >> > > > We definitely intend that there is still full compatibility > between > >> > > > Flex and any changes we make with AIR.. so thanks to leokan23 and > >> Alex > >> > > > for bringing this to our attention! > >> > > > > >> > > > thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > Andrew > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: Olaf Krueger > >> > > > Sent: 06 March 2020 20:30 > >> > > > To: users@flex.apache.org > >> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flex 4.16.1 broken for AIR33.1? > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > > > >> > > > I didn't follow the entire discussion, but I'd like to mention > that > >> I > >> > > > am not sure if we still have enough volunteers which are willing > to > >> > > > work on a new Flex release. > >> > > > > >> > > > That said, I think it would be nice if any AIR updates would be > >> > > > compatible with the latest Flex SDK... as long as it's possible. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Olaf > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Sent from: > >> > > > > >> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3T23VtMr4Dz6j6DqBbgaf5T7Vc?u=http%3A%2F > >> > > > %2Fapache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com%2F > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Carlos Rovira > >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Carlos Rovira > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
