IMO, there should not be an "Official Apache Royale Animation Library". There are so many ways to do animations with various trade-offs that we should provide as many ways as we can and let our users decide.
The Royale releases can provide a Royale version of Greensock as long as it is an option used by the minority (not majority) of our users. Or Greensock can provide the Royale version. Really, the goal of Royale is to provide strongly-typed API surfaces for common JS patterns (or really, common patterns on any runtime/platform). If we can create API surfaces that work great on multiple platforms/runtimes, that's a bonus, but it is totally fine to provide an API surface that closely mimics a popular existing library even if ports to other platforms/runtimes is difficult/impossible. That's why there is the MaterialDesignLite library. Think of comparing the efficiency of finding some JS snippet on StackOverflow or on some library provider's getting started site then copying that snippet into your app and trying to get it to work. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is a painful process. The Royale wrapping of that snippet strictly defines the inputs and outputs of that snippet so you know right away what the right data types are to submit and receive. So pick one JS animation library and wrap it, then do another one or try to convince some other volunteer to wrap it. If we are successful, the library providers will want to provide the wrapping themselves because it will reduce support overhead for their users. But we shouldn't pick one as the "official" one. My 2 cents, -Alex On 7/8/19, 10:42 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fweb-animations%2Fweb-animations-js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452035338&sdata=bVNZuZqlZWDXxkhL3a%2FJsIzk6zjTQPmuA8HGeO2tJn0%3D&reserved=0 > > [2] > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FPopmotion%2Fpopmotion%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fpackages%2Fpopmotion-pose%2FLICENSE.md&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452035338&sdata=iajHcUpfhGKDnef%2BIJP4QUTq6AQ%2FIdGoVrqRIBW32GE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreensock.com%2Fstandard-license&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452035338&sdata=vDaqukNpGagFuPSzmXrbTi0Y0uCLV6Vn5yj60nUBO2Q%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> - 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] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fframer.com&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452035338&sdata=lIqRtcKwDE0OCT3wGM%2Bx3kugJN35UYm0PChGbLndq2s%3D&reserved=0 > >>> [2] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpopmotion.io%2Fpure%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452045312&sdata=FPI4ZvDOMKANDzX6Nnb5rDK9jkz2gVWg%2F5mXLYx5hDY%3D&reserved=0 > >>> [3] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreensock.com&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452045312&sdata=5VbwCMV%2B59nep9vrbi%2B7YxIc9hT3n8R5qNkcVFBwyjk%3D&reserved=0 > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452045312&sdata=uGzr8mkOiAvf1C3djLu8bokDoi0PasCiYIcd8kIvK88%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452045312&sdata=uGzr8mkOiAvf1C3djLu8bokDoi0PasCiYIcd8kIvK88%3D&reserved=0 > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9be1747ad43b437d1e4408d703cba2b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636982045452045312&sdata=uGzr8mkOiAvf1C3djLu8bokDoi0PasCiYIcd8kIvK88%3D&reserved=0
