Raju, I believe Adobe is selling support contracts for Adobe Flex version 4.6.
Apache Flex, although initially the same codebase as Adobe Flex 4.6, would be a different product. The community can take it in whatever direction it would like to go. Carol -----Original Message----- From: Raju Bitter <rajubit...@googlemail.com> Reply-To: "rajubit...@gmail.com" <rajubit...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:13 -0800 To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator >Thanks for the quick response, Greg! > >On 12/20/11 9:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:30, Raju Bitter<rajubit...@googlemail.com> >>wrote: >>> ... >>> 2) Action Script Virtual Machine (AVM) >>> In November 2006 Adobe open source the Flash Player Script engine: >>> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/press/mozilla-2006-11-07.html >>> Is the source code of Tamarin still the current version of the Action >>>Script >>> Virtual Machine in Flash Player 11? If there is a new version of the >>>AVM >>> (2+), will that be contributed to the Apache Software Foundation as >>>well? >>> >>> It doesn't really make sense to only contribute a compiler, if there >>>is no >>> open source implementation of a runtime/scripting engine available, >>>but that >>> might only be my personal view. If the community would decide to >>>create a an >>> open standards based runtime for Flex, would that mean the community >>>would >>> have to start from zero? >> >> I think that's just your personal view :-) >That's true, but still would be good to have an open source, up-to-date >scripting engine for ActionScript bytecode to enable other future >runtimes (imagine running the same ActionScript 3 code in the client and >on the server, like node.js). Therefore it would be very valuable to >know if Tamarin is still compatible with the scripting engine Flash >Player 11. > >> There is a ton of open source code written to work against Oracle's >> RDBMS, or Windows' .NET runtime, or Apple's iOS. I see no problem with >> Apache Flex targeting a proprietary environment. >I'm not sure which projects you are talking about: .NET runtime should >be compatible to Mono, > >>> 3) Commercial support for Apache Flex >>> Does Adobe plan to offer support for an Apache Flex product? If yes, >>>what >>> kind of support would be planned. I read somewhere that Adobe will not >>>offer >>> any support for Flex 4.6+ to new customers, but I'm not sure, if that's >>> still the current plan. >> >> I think this is orthogonal/unrelated to the Apache Flex proposal. >I think it is related to the proposal. If Adobe has binding contracts >for future versions of Flex, and the Apache community would decide to >change Apache Flex 4.7 implementation details, Adobe might be forced to >fork the project for customers. How would that work? > >>> 4) Flash Player >>> Are there any plans to open source a stripped-down version of Flash >>>Player, >>> e.g. the discontinued version of Flash Player for mobile) in the future >>> (similar to the pure open source Flex SDK vs. the commercial SDK)? The >>> Apache community could continue working on a browser-based mobile >>>runtime >>> for Apache Flex, if that was the case. >> >> Likewise. >Isn't it a valid question to ask which runtimes will be available for a >a framework with compiler? To be technically correct, Flex applications >WON'T run in mobile browsers without a Flash Player (which means you >won't see a Flex application on iOS). You CAN compile a Flex application >into a mobile application using the Adobe AIR SDK and the Adobe AIR >player. The proposal mentions rich Internet applications running in >desktop and mobile browsers. Elsewhere iOS is mentioned. As we all know, >Flash applications (SWF files) cannot be rendered in iOS browser. >Therefore the question if there will be a way run mobile Flex >applications in mobile browsers as rich Internet applications (versus >native apps) is very valid in my eyes. > >> >>> I hope I don't sound to skeptical here, but Adobe Flex is quite >>>different >>> from most Apache projects I've been in contact with. It's a powerful >>> compiler with an interesting language, but it looks like the output of >>>the >>> compiler can only be used with Adobe-owned proprietary software at the >>> moment. >> >> As I mentioned above, I don't see this as a problem whatsoever. And >> even if *some* people have a problem with it, there is a huge >> committer list of people who obviously have zero problem with that >> fact. The Foundation is here to provide support to communities, rather >> than block them on philosophical rationales. (IMO :-) So if a >> community wants to build up around Apache Flex, then we do what we can >> to help them. >I've been using Flash for the past 8 years in projects, organized Flex >User Group meetings, co-organized events with Adobe. I have a good >understanding of what Flash, ActionScript and AIR are capable off, how >many people are using Flash, how useful it can be. > >But none of the companies offering RIA related products and players in >the past 7 years (Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, to name the big ones) >has not been affected by strategy changes of the management, often >leaving developers and clients in positions which were less optimal. >(Adobe Flex 1.5 -> 2.0 changes, differences in Silverlight APIs with >major version upgrades, Sun/Oracle dumping JavaFX Script, Microsoft's >decision to favor HTML5 over Silverlight). > >Adobe decided to discontinue development of Flash Player for mobile >devices and smart TVs (it's a company decision, we have to respect >that, but it wasn't easy for large number of people to hear those >news). If they would decide to discontinue the desktop version of >Flash Player, wouldn't it be good if the community would have an >alternative runtime prepared already? I believe it is in the interest >of the Apache Flex community to have an alternative runtime for Flex >in the not-too-far future, and if Adobe would express support of that >goal , it would be very valuable. > >The proposal might have a sentence saying: "Adobe will provide the >Apache community with the technical information needed to develop >additional runtimes for Flex." Would that be acceptable? > >> Cheers, >> -g > >Thanks again for you comments! > >Raju > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
