Hi Harbs, I'm thinking more in an official Apache Royale library. Of course, we can provide GreenShock in some separate GitHub repo like Royale Extras or other (personal, company,...)
thanks El lun., 8 jul. 2019 a las 16:48, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Not sure what you mean by “us”. If you mean Royale, we I guess we can’t > include it because it does not have compatible licensing. > > If you mean your company, I don’t know why you can’t wrap it and use it in > a Royale app. > > Harbs > > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Josh, > > > > IMHO, Greensock seems not to be the best option for us, so if others > don't > > say the oposite we can discard it. And Web Animations API or Popmotion > Pure > > seems the best options we have > > > > Web Animations API seems to be ALv2 [1] > > Popmotion seems to be MIT [2] > > > > [1] https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js > > [2] > > > https://github.com/Popmotion/popmotion/blob/master/packages/popmotion-pose/LICENSE.md > > > > > > > > > > El lun., 8 jul. 2019 a las 15:42, Josh Tynjala (< > [email protected]>) > > escribió: > > > >> Greensock's source code is available, but it is not a standard open > source > >> license. They require a commercial license if your project meets certain > >> conditions. > >> > >> https://greensock.com/standard-license > >> > >> - Josh > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 4:36 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> one thing I'm investigating in parallel among other things is about how > >> to > >>> make animations easy in Royale. > >>> We have already some infrastructure in the Effects.swc, but this > library > >>> has the great point to be very oriented > >>> to Royale with beads and although I didn't tried in SWF, I suppose is > >>> working for Royale JS and SWF. > >>> > >>> In the other hand there's other great JS frameworks out there that > brings > >>> many options to this field, but the problem will be > >>> just that: only JS. > >>> > >>> For me the better option would be to create a new library to be used > with > >>> UI sets, that brings the power of some programatic JS > >>> lib out there, and concentrate in the JS part in the short term but > left > >>> open to SWF for others that want to bring that part to it. > >>> > >>> I think many things nowadays can be done in CSS, or JS or combination > of > >>> both. And I like the idea of having most of this in CSS > >>> if possible. I think Web Animations API has both options animations via > >> JS > >>> API and via CSS > >>> > >>> I was interested in Framer [1]. I always liked it. But seems Framer has > >>> turn towards React. Today I could have a call with Framer people > >>> to ask for possibilities to make some Royale lib (as we did for MDL) > for > >>> Framer , since although the older version is OS, the newer is still > >>> not, although they want to make it OS. The problems is Framer is very > >> React > >>> oriented, so I think is not a real option. > >>> > >>> Then Framer people kindly point me to Popmotion Pure [2], that seems > the > >>> point from where Framer was created. > >>> > >>> I still need to dig a bit into this, but seems a good option (for what > I > >>> see). > >>> So, one option could be: > >>> > >>> a) Use Web Animations API: I used this already in Jewel Wizard, and > maybe > >>> this is the real option of future > >>> b) Use Popmotion > >>> c) Use GreenShock [3] (I think others here like Harbs pointed to this. > I > >>> still didn't look at it, but I think is a payed lib, so maybe not the > >>> better to use) > >>> > >>> What do you think about it? I'd like what others think about all of > this > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] http://framer.com > >>> [2] https://popmotion.io/pure/ > >>> [3] https://greensock.com > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
