> I definitely wasn't speaking about refactoring the whole framework to
interfaces as a #1 priority. :)
I would start by refactoring the full framework ;) and make the core of
the Flex SDK smaller and lighter (without loosing it's power), and
easier to extend.
João Saleiro
On 04-01-2012 21:11, Michael Schmalle wrote:
Ok,
I'm still getting used to how I am not talking to someone in person
here and my statements need to be more detailed.
What I meant is setting interface modularity as #1 priority when
designing or implementing new features. So the problems are non
existent when "new" features are released.
I definitely wasn't speaking about refactoring the whole framework to
interfaces as a #1 priority. :)
In no way was I speaking about #1 priority of this whole project, that
doesn't even make sense to me.
Mike
Quoting Jonathan Campos <[email protected]>:
not sure how much we want to get into this but I disagree. After
focusing
on unit testing (making sure we don't break anything) I would think
that DI
would be most important on an architectural level.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Michael Schmalle
<[email protected]>wrote:
Continuing the thread from "Committer duties and information"
about setting interface priority to #1 in the future development fo
Flex.
Mike
--
Jonathan Campos
Dallas Flex User Group Manager
http://www.d-flex.org/
blog: http://www.unitedmindset.com/jonbcampos
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jonbcampos
