Well, I'm definitely interested. I'd be happy to help do whatever you need to get it ready for donation.
Harbs On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Freeman wrote: > @Harbs, Yup agreed. Wait until AS"next". > > My text wrapping (eMagazine) project seems such a long time ago. I had a > couple of commercial enquiries about developing this further - but nothing > materialised in the end. I moved onto other projects, planning to come > back to this - but realistically I don't think I'll ever have time. OK - I > could donate it to open-source if there was interest. I'd need to do a bit > of tidying-up first. > > The AIR app is no longer available, but there are some youtube videos on my > old blog: > > http://e2easy.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/first-beta-prototype-of-e2publish-here-now/ > > http://e2easy.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/e2publish-video-tutorials/ > > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure that people have a problem with your attitude. (I definitely >> don't.) I think that it wasn't totally clear what you were proposing. >> >> Basically, there's not much to talk about until ASNext is available and >> the actual work on these components could be done. What you say about >> waiting makes sense to me. It seems likely to me that building on your >> components will make sense, but I don't see how we can know until we see >> what develops between now and then. >> >> On a totally separate topic: >> >> I know you did work a while back on implementing text wrap for TLF. What's >> the status of that work? Is it something you might consider donating? I'm >> sure many of us would not mind polishing it up, if it's not yet ready for >> publication… >> >> Harbs >> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:23 AM, Daniel Freeman wrote: >> >>> @Om, I think people misunderstand what I've demoed here. The demo was a >>> very quick and dirty proof of concept. An experiment I didn't want to >>> spend too much time on - because too much investment at this time might >> be >>> lost when we get to the other side of the AS"next" cataclysm. >>> >>> I could have subclassed viewStack and dealt with transitions there, >> solving >>> any synch problems the way I do in MadComponents. But I went with a >> quick >>> lash-up. >>> >>> My intention for MC3D"next" is to fully integrate Stage3D capabilities >> into >>> MadComponents. >>> >>> Maybe you've noticed that my Stage3D MC3D classes aren't fully integrated >>> into MadComponents. If you think that they're bolted on the side - you'd >>> be right. And there's a good reason for this. Stage3D is bolted on the >>> side of AS3. The further that I get into work-arounds, the more I'm >>> probably wasting effort on matters that will hopefully be resolved in >>> AS"next" anyway. >>> >>> I have a lot of display-list Sprite.graphics drawing going on right now. >>> And unrestricted styling of display-list text. I'm hoping that AS"next" >>> will provide new vector graphics and text classes for Stage3D - and if it >>> does, re-writing my existing component rendering code might be >>> straightforward. And I might not need a geometric renderer work-around >>> after all. >>> >>> But I don't know yet. >>> >>> Personally, I wouldn't invest too much effort in a new framework now. ( >>> Unless, you're on a beta programme for AS"next" that I don't know about >> ). >>> For me, there are too many unknowns right now. If I were you, I would >>> plan to work on this intensely on this as soon as an AS"next" beta >>> programme kicks off. >>> >>> Om, I've come onto this forum being completely honest about my >> intentions. >>> And people don't like my attitude. It is my intention deliver >> MC3D"next". >>> Not Flex"next". My idea is to offer these classes as the basis for >>> Flex"next" - if you want. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Daniel Freeman < >> madcompone...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've done some experiments with Stage3D accelerated Flex components, >>>>> derived from MadComponents classes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> http://madskool.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/madcomponents3d-part5-stage3d-accelerated-flex/ >>>>> >>>>> It is my intention to port MadComponents to AS"next". I propose that >>>> these >>>>> ported MadComponents/MC3D classes might form the basis of a new Flex >>>> mobile >>>>> framework that utilises hardware GPU rendering. >>>>> >>>>> I'm aware that Thibault Imbert has proposed that a new Flex framework >>>>> should be based on Starling and Feathers. But I believe that the MC3D >>>>> approach is better suited to the next Flex mobile framework. >>>>> >>>>> MadComponents is a fully fledged framework, not just a UI framework. >> It >>>>> allows for versatile styling of components (without having to design >>>>> texture skins), server communication, and memory management. >>>>> >>>>> However, until we know more about AS"next", which framework approach to >>>>> choose is mostly speculation. >>>>> >>>>> So I'd like the members of this group to read my blog post, and let me >>>> know >>>>> what they think. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Daniel, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your interest in helping out Apache Flex! >>>> >>>> I have been following Madcomponents and your blog for a while now. I >>>> looked your example in your "stage3d accelerated flex" post [1]. While >>>> that is good for a nice looking demo, I dont think that the approach you >>>> suggest can be used to support an real framework like Flex. >>>> >>>> Whenever I see a reference to FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication anywhere >> in a >>>> component's code, I always think of it as a hackish workaround trying to >>>> cover up for the lack of a good design. More specifically, this >> approach >>>> would blow up when there are two instances (Lists in your example) on >> the >>>> stage and we try to animate both of them at the same time or at a slight >>>> lag. The topLevelApplication goes invisible, the first List does its >> thing >>>> on the gpu, then sets the topLevelApplication to be visible. Now, if >> the >>>> second component had already started the transition, it would expect the >>>> topLevelApplication to be invisible while it runs. But the first >> component >>>> would have made it visible because it had finished running. This would >>>> cause quite serious rendering issues to say the least. >>>> >>>> While I have your attention, I would like to talk about another blog >> post >>>> of yours that I had bookmarked a while ago [2] Here, you talk about >>>> building a set of UI components from scratch that would directly draw to >>>> Stage3D (no starling or anything in between) I think that your example >> and >>>> your approach made a lot of sense. If you have been following the >> thread >>>> [3], we are talking about a brand new flex framework designed from >> scratch. >>>> This is where I am planning to spend my time on for the next few months. >>>> My hope was to start building a graphics rendering layer that draws >>>> directly to Stage3D, much like how you mention in the blog post. Is >> this >>>> something you can help out with? This approach would set us free of the >>>> shackles of the current Flex framework - which frankly needs a lot of >>>> rework and/or hacks to support Stage3D. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Om >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> >> http://code.google.com/p/mad-components/source/browse/trunk/FlexMadComponents/src/FlexMadPageTransitions.mxml >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >> http://madskool.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/drawing-madcomponents-with-stage3d/ >>>> [3] http://markmail.org/message/yjykc72a7qeoootr >>>> >> >>
