Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi, for me the best options today are: * AIR: If you don't need the browser, you can still have more years to avoid a more time consuming migration. Harman seems taking the torch to manage Adobe AIR in a good way. Maybe to early to say anything now, but AIR seems in good hands. * Apache Royale: We already migrated a big Flex application to Apache Royale and it took us considerable less time than go to any other tech out there. We reused around 70-80% of flex code and rewrite UI with Jewel in part since we need a more modern and mobile UI. That's a huge fact. In the other hand Apache Royale is each day/week/month better thanks to people contributing and continue refining the solution so bugs are continuely pursued and solved and we are getting more and more real use cases working good. Think in the work of the past few weeks, I can remember things like, implementing as3 Vector, improving release process to make it super-easy, Jewel Modules, How to use external JS libraries easily (blog post), working with ElectronJS (blog post), many improvments over compiler and framework code to solve bugs in language constructions, implementation of new things like abstract class and private constructors, just to mention what I remember right now...amazing, right? Think what more things we'll get over the next months... Other considerations can be respected, but not taken like something that will eventually occur. Fear is normal. Fear in Royale's future is all depending only on us (no more Adobe, Googleo or Facebook) and I think we have a very focused team at Apache Royale with very valuable people: Alex Harui, Josh Tynjala, Piotr, Harbs, Yshay, Olaf, Andrew, Greg Dove and many more...Many people that believes in the project. We don't need Apache Royale to be as successful as Angular or React. Think on haXe, is not as popular, but maybe one of the best cross platform techs out there and with a healthy community. One key to succeed is don't listen to naysayers, and just go our way. Naysayers will be always there, telling you "this is not possible". Ok, in my experience, all things I tried many things that seems impossible and some succeed. Apache Royale is now working nowadays despite those naysayers. Apache Royale is nowadays a reality, ready to use and you just need to believe in it and most important, think that you need to get involved in the project as other part of the project to master and control it. Most of the people that fails with a technology is because are thinking in the old way where all things should come from a company like Adobe. This is not valid anymore, and you need to be more active in mailing list and participate, propose, learn, contribute and pursue what you need to make it done and available to the rest of the community. People waiting for others to make the job, will find many problems in the way and probably will not get success with Royale until more time pass and it becomes lots of maturity. HTH Carlos El mar., 25 jun. 2019 a las 4:19, Alex Harui () escribió: > Also note that in examples/mxroyale/tourdeflexmodules, I used the > emulation components to migrate over 100 screens by not rewriting them much > at all. There are still some bugs to be ironed out, but if volunteers > pitch in, they will be resolved. > > -Alex > > On 6/24/19, 2:25 AM, "Olaf Krueger" wrote: > > Hi, > > >I am wondering if I should consider AIR > > As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser, AIR > probably > means the least effort. > Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license > changed and > they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR > forwards. > > > ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task > > I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need. > Take a > look at the Royale Jewel component set. > Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's > probably > less time-consuming than rewriting anything. > Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems. > > Olaf > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.harman.com%2Fpartners%2Fadobedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191sdata=ZCf5Aj8bHugE5rVRCJ%2BO9wcsvEIuRjP7uiWl7heQtPg%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > -- > Sent from: > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191sdata=QOfyJYG0fh4nUNuSebZUK2gQhvkHufaQtdiOzOYf3YI%3Dreserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Also note that in examples/mxroyale/tourdeflexmodules, I used the emulation components to migrate over 100 screens by not rewriting them much at all. There are still some bugs to be ironed out, but if volunteers pitch in, they will be resolved. -Alex On 6/24/19, 2:25 AM, "Olaf Krueger" wrote: Hi, >I am wondering if I should consider AIR As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser, AIR probably means the least effort. Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license changed and they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR forwards. > ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need. Take a look at the Royale Jewel component set. Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's probably less time-consuming than rewriting anything. Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems. Olaf [1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.harman.com%2Fpartners%2Fadobedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191sdata=ZCf5Aj8bHugE5rVRCJ%2BO9wcsvEIuRjP7uiWl7heQtPg%3Dreserved=0 -- Sent from: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191sdata=QOfyJYG0fh4nUNuSebZUK2gQhvkHufaQtdiOzOYf3YI%3Dreserved=0
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Olaf I Totally agree, back in 2009 I spend 1 year looking a frameworks, going round and round reading all the stuff trying to balance one evangelist vs another evangelist, then o read something that said there is no answer pick want works for you, in my case I needed rich UX, at the time that meant Flex and off I went When I say " evangelist,” these guys create a lot of noise and you need to understand how the get “paid” / ‘rewarded” cash clicks or ego etc. you have to try and filter all this out and work out what's best for you or pick something that you think will be with us for a long time Angular was a the big hope, Goggle is a big player Then React, well face book is a big player Now well maybe Vue.js I long for the day of Flash / Flex rules the world PS keeps us all in a job :) > On 24 Jun 2019, at 09:58, Olaf Krueger wrote: > > Hi, > >> Royal is ... IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again > > I think this is valid for all of the tech stacks/frameworks out there. > Depending on the use case, Royale could be the best option... or even not. > But it's always worth to give it a try like any other tech stack or > framework out there which might fits your needs. > Nothing lives forever, maybe Google's Angular will be eaten by Googles > Flutter, maybe Vue.js will take over React, maybe... nobody knows. > > I guess the time where we could stick with one tech stack over a decade is > long gone. > Things are changing incredibly fast these days, today's hottest hype may be > forgotten tomorrow. > I think we have to re-think our decisions from project to project, depending > on the project's needs, the available tooling, libs, developers etc. > > Just my 2cents, even if this is not helpful ;-) > Olaf > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi, >I am wondering if I should consider AIR As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser, AIR probably means the least effort. Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license changed and they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR forwards. > ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need. Take a look at the Royale Jewel component set. Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's probably less time-consuming than rewriting anything. Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems. Olaf [1] https://services.harman.com/partners/adobe -- Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi, > Royal is ... IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again I think this is valid for all of the tech stacks/frameworks out there. Depending on the use case, Royale could be the best option... or even not. But it's always worth to give it a try like any other tech stack or framework out there which might fits your needs. Nothing lives forever, maybe Google's Angular will be eaten by Googles Flutter, maybe Vue.js will take over React, maybe... nobody knows. I guess the time where we could stick with one tech stack over a decade is long gone. Things are changing incredibly fast these days, today's hottest hype may be forgotten tomorrow. I think we have to re-think our decisions from project to project, depending on the project's needs, the available tooling, libs, developers etc. Just my 2cents, even if this is not helpful ;-) Olaf -- Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Flash app -> AIR
On 6/23/19, 11:51 AM, "Scott Matheson" wrote: Alex I fully understand and wish you all the best, but as a small developer i need to look at what is best for my development, i will keep a eye on Royal For sure, you have to do what's best for you. Another good thing about Apache projects is that you can be one of the 3 PMC members who keeps Royale or Flex going. The members of an Apache project are all volunteers from Apache's perspective. I may be an employee of Adobe, but neither I nor any other member of Royale or Flex had to be "hired" by Apache. Instead, you or Blake or anyone can contribute patches in your spare time, earn committer rights, learn how to cut and review releases and earn PMC membership. Then you have permanent stake in the project. All you need to cut a future release is two others to help you review it. You can commit bug fixes or new features as long as they don't conflict with someone else's commits. There is no product manager or business people deciding what goes in the next release or when the next release is. Try getting a bug fix accepted and released by some other large-ish non-Apache projects. It can be a challenge. Sometimes, the best way to control the future is to contribute to it. My 2 cents, -Alex > On 23 Jun 2019, at 06:26, Alex Harui wrote: > > One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can pull the plug. Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any say in their projects. If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can. > > As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve releases, the projects can live on at the ASF. The community only has to be large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing lists and process releases. > > -Alex > > On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" wrote: > >So I am an old program 60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times > >As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success > >Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be a dead end > >Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time > >Sent from my iPad > >> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki wrote: >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end? >> >> Thanks, >> Piotr >> >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott wrote: >>> >>> AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the >>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... >>> >>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top >>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the >>> WebKit stuff is not difficult >>> >>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a >>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this >>> approach >>> >>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to >>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 >>> day >>> >>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be >>> porting again >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: Greetings, I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? Thanks. Blake McBride >>> >>> > > >
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Alex I fully understand and wish you all the best, but as a small developer i need to look at what is best for my development, i will keep a eye on Royal > On 23 Jun 2019, at 06:26, Alex Harui wrote: > > One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can > pull the plug. Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any > say in their projects. If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex > and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can. > > As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve > releases, the projects can live on at the ASF. The community only has to be > large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing > lists and process releases. > > -Alex > > On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" wrote: > >So I am an old program 60 so I would say I have seen it all many time > over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times > >As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 > years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing > elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the > success > >Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community > then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to > flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it > will not, then royal will be a dead end > >Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this > happen many time > >Sent from my iPad > >> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki wrote: >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end? >> >> Thanks, >> Piotr >> >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott wrote: >>> >>> AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the >>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... >>> >>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top >>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the >>> WebKit stuff is not difficult >>> >>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a >>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this >>> approach >>> >>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to >>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 >>> day >>> >>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be >>> porting again >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: Greetings, I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? Thanks. Blake McBride >>> >>> > > >
Re: Flash app -> AIR
One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can pull the plug. Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any say in their projects. If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can. As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve releases, the projects can live on at the ASF. The community only has to be large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing lists and process releases. -Alex On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" wrote: So I am an old program 60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be a dead end Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time Sent from my iPad > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end? > > Thanks, > Piotr > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott wrote: >> >> AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the >> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... >> >> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top >> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the >> WebKit stuff is not difficult >> >> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a >> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this >> approach >> >> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to >> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 >> day >> >> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be >> porting again >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. >>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider >>> AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Blake McBride >> >>
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Yes with 450 screen that’s a big job, air or the local wed browse is the simple approach We went with royal, the design approach is the same as flex, we started by creating 1 to 1 components, the new compounded are JS CSS SVGS in our case about 30 components The royal component architecture is identical to flex so your front end logic does not need to change, we had a simple, MVC design As for AS3 we used a converter to TrueType, the code logic is the same, we used a tool and a bit manual work, we took the operation to add testing We do have a simpler application, 30 screens that generated about 1000 screens , we planned on 6 man months work, we are 3 into the project and on track, we will end up with a stand application, in the sweet spot of the industry, royal will never be in the sweet spot for the industry It is a big hit on cost and time, but we have a future, this app has been running is some form or other for 20 plus years, this is our 3rd rewrite we started with a desk top products toolbook 1995, which was good for 15 years, then we moved to flex 2010, and html5 from 2200 Happy to provide detailed information if you need Scott Sent from my iPad > On 22 Jun 2019, at 17:03, Blake McBride wrote: > > Hi. Thanks for the response. I have some questions below. > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:42 AM Scott wrote: >> >> AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the >> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... >> >> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top >> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the >> WebKit stuff is not difficult >> >> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a >> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this >> approach >> >> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to >> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 >> day >> > > Since my Flash front-end talks to the back-end with SOAP & REST, I am able > to create an equivalent HTML front-end without changing the back-end. But > that is essentially a re-write of the front-end, and with 450 screens, > that's a bit of a task. I do not understand what you mean by "keeps all > the as3 code" since the required JavaScript code for the HTML is very > different. I also don't know what "converted to TrueType" means since > that's just a font. > > > >> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be >> porting again >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. >>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider >>> AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Blake McBride >> >>
Re: Flash app -> AIR
So I am an old program 60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be a dead end Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time Sent from my iPad > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end? > > Thanks, > Piotr > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott wrote: >> >> AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the >> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... >> >> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top >> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the >> WebKit stuff is not difficult >> >> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a >> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this >> approach >> >> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to >> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 >> day >> >> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be >> porting again >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. >>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider >>> AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Blake McBride >> >>
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi. Thanks for the response. I have some questions below. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:42 AM Scott wrote: > AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the > solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... > > Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top > app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the > WebKit stuff is not difficult > > With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a > deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this > approach > > In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to > HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 > day > Since my Flash front-end talks to the back-end with SOAP & REST, I am able to create an equivalent HTML front-end without changing the back-end. But that is essentially a re-write of the front-end, and with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task. I do not understand what you mean by "keeps all the as3 code" since the required JavaScript code for the HTML is very different. I also don't know what "converted to TrueType" means since that's just a font. > Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be > porting again > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. > > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider > > AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Blake McBride > >
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi Scott, I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end? Thanks, Piotr On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott wrote: > AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the > solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... > > Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top > app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the > WebKit stuff is not difficult > > With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a > deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this > approach > > In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to > HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 > day > > Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be > porting again > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. > > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider > > AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Blake McBride > >
Re: Flash app -> AIR
AIR is a good option but you have the update install problems, the solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ... Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the WebKit stuff is not difficult With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this approach In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 day Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride wrote: > > Greetings, > > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider > AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? > > Thanks. > > Blake McBride
Re: Flash app -> AIR
Hi Blake, Well AIR would be the easiest cause in best case you won't change single line in your core app. Another option is Apache Royale, but if you are saying about fast option it's probably don't fit to that. Thanks, Piotr On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:25 PM Blake McBride wrote: > Greetings, > > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider > AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? > > Thanks. > > Blake McBride >
Flash app -> AIR
Greetings, I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser. Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider AIR. What are my other options? What's easiest? Thanks. Blake McBride
