Hi Yishay,
I didn't know that pureMVC had been ported to javascript (and so many
others langages).
Good to know that there is already an option for MVC framework in FlexJS.
Thanks.
Vincent.
Le 11/01/2017 à 12:22, Yishay Weiss a écrit :
We’re using PureMVC with FlexJS.
From: Vincent<mailto:vinc...@after24.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:04 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [FlexJS] Some things still missing ni FlexJS
Hi Carlos,
I agree with you. AMF support is essential for us to start thinking
porting our Flex apps to FlexJS.
I use MVC architecture with the support of Parsley 3 for :
- Dependency Injection
- Messaging
- Managed command (synchronous and asynchronous)
Is there an equivalent of this tools in the current version of FlexJS ?
Cheers.
Vincent.
Le 11/01/2017 à 10:43, Carlos Rovira a écrit :
Hi Alex,
I think many people in this thread are saying "No, we'll not go to
production without AMF and basic module support". IMHO, it would be very
difficult to say we have 1.0 without that, since AMF/RemoteObject was in
almost 99% of old Flex SDK, with some HTTPServices and almost no
WebServices (I mean the MXML object).
As well, for a basic experiment, people could go without modules, but for a
producction App, a basic load of modules is needed.
Then, i18n, Routing, Unit and Functionality testing and so on should come,
but for me (If I must to choose) that could come after 1.0
For example, in my own company, without AMF and Modules I don't have enough
to put FlexJS over React to ask people to use it over the other... (and I
know that we'll find many other little things we need in the road)
Just my 2ctns
2017-01-10 18:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>:
In my mind, there is little doubt that someone will someday implement AMF
and not-unloadable modules. The question is when? IMO, as soon as
someone can tell us they've gone to production with the code we have, I'm
willing to call that 1.0, and the people who wrote that app probably
migrated a single SWF, single-language, XML or REST app. Regular Flex
grew just fine and it didn’t support modules in 1.0.
For sure, as we add modules, AMF, I18N, we'll gain more customers, but I
am hesitant to say these are all 1.0 required features.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 1/10/17, 6:28 AM, "Dev LFM" <developer...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
2017-01-10 14:09 GMT+00:00 Fréderic Cox <coxfrede...@gmail.com>:
AMF is also essential for us to take FlexJS serious as a replacement to
Flex
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Vincent <vinc...@after24.net> wrote:
Hello,
Same points than Christopher : AMF and modules.
The first is essential for us.
Vincent.
Le 10/01/2017 à 13:07, Christofer Dutz a écrit :
+1 for the AMF and +1 for not-unloadable modules.
I see it the same way as Carlos. At the moment I see FlexJS as an
opportunity for companies to get out of the dilemma of being stuck
in a
dead end with their existing Flex applications.
Supporting things like modules and AMF will ease the migration costs
dramatically. Even if AMF might be a touch slower than JSON I still
think
it’s worth being supported.
Chris
Am 10.01.17, 12:14 schrieb "carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von
Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von
carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>:
"IMO, this has two halves: non-unloadable modules is relatively
straight
forward to do. Unloadable modules will be a ton of work. IIRC,
Flex 1.0
and I think even Flex 2.x grew its customer base without
unloadable
modules."
If non-unloadable modules is easy to implement, I think it
should go ASAP.
Then we could left unloadable modules por the future...
For me, AMF is a must, since many companies are using it,
and
I
expect many
of them switch from old Flex to FlexJS if it's as easy as change
only the
frontend. Change server code means no easy way to change, so
stick
in old
code
Thanks
2017-01-08 9:52 GMT+01:00 Harbs <
harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> I agree that skinning is harder than it should be.
>
> For one thing: There’s too many attributes which are set
directly.
More
> extensive use of CSS would make skinning easier.
>
> On Jan 8, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Christofer Dutz <
christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > From my side I’m missing skinnable components. I really
loved
the way I
> could create applications with skinning.
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
puede
contener
información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
mensaje
por
error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
misma
vía y
proceda a su destrucción.
De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
(15/1999),
le
comunicamos
que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
CODEOSCOPIC
S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
prestación
del
servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
acceso,
rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
dirigiéndose a
nuestras
oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
documentación
necesaria.
