On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/25/14 4:19 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 8/25/14 3:57 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> AIUI, as long as we can build TDF by downloading third-party SWCs as > >> >>part > >> >> of the build process it doesn't even have to be compatibly-licensed. > >> > > >> > > >> >That is, assuming that a 3rd party component developer has a freely > >> >available download that we could use. It is not a very likely > >>scenario. > >> Maybe we need concrete examples. If your component isn't freely > >> available, maybe the app that exhibits it should be in the showcase? > >> > >> > >Do you mean 'should not'? > I meant "should". If you won't disclose the source code, that app is a > better fit for the showcase than the explorer with its source views. > Oh, you mean the Flex Showcase. But that is for production released apps and they don't contain examples and code. I can build a component on top of Flex, and publish a list of example code snippets on how to use the component. There should a be a pace in TourDeFlex for this. > > > > > >> Or are you talking about components that aren't free? Good question if > >> for-pay components are a good fit for Apache TDF. > >> > > > >We need to support free and non-free component developers. Otherwise we > >will never see enterprise components in the wild. That is one of the > >reasons we don't have a good public showcase in spite of great apps being > >built on top of Apache Flex. > Apache has been conservative about looking like it is promoting > for-profits so we have to be careful, but if nobody else objects I'm fine > with it. > I really hope no one objects to this. Flex is nothing without support from enterprise companies and 3rd party developers. > > > > > >> > >> And, if we get clearance from the Incubator to make changes to our > >>version > >> of TDF on our site, then we could add them to the site version but not > >>the > >> Apache version. > >> > >> > >Please elaborate. I am not sure what the difference is. > Well, we may not want explorer.xml in the git repo to list these > third-party examples, but the one on the site (or compiled into the one on > the site) could. > Ah okay. I think we need to split that up at some point. > > > > >Finally, why can't we just hotlink if the 3rd party folks are okay with > >it? > Can do that too, but then there is increased risk of failure of that > external url stops working. > You run that risk even if you try to download the dependencies during building. At least with this option, we will have a lot more eyes making it easier to catch and fix issues. Thanks, Om > > -Alex > >
