You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by sébastien Paturel <se...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/05 15:44:05 UTC
Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex? (was: Financing the
Design View AIR App (Was: Re: Design View AIR App))
After Alex mentioned FXG, one important question comes to light:
should Apache Flex keep use FXG as skining tool?
as FXG is tightly linked to Adobe and its tools, can we count on Adobe
to continue to maintain the use of it? especially in Creative suite tools?
by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
Alex, can you please enlighten us on that subject?
Thanks
Le 03/10/2012 19:37, Alex Harui a écrit :
>
>
> On 10/3/12 10:21 AM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Well isn't it usually that way around?
>>
>> I create some general UI scetches using some tools like blamiq mockups and
>> deal with negoitating the functionallity with my customers. As soon as the
>> component works as desired I go "pimp my app" and give it to a designer to
>> have it pimped.
> I rarely ever "finish" an app, but that would be my preferred workflow as
> well.
>> Using Catalyst this was really easy (As soon as you had a desiger at hand that
>> was used to it and it's concepts). I was even able to let the designer skin a
>> running application deployed by me somewhere on the web, so I didn't have give
>> away the code of the application itself or setup the environment at the
>> designers office. This workflow was the major breakthrough for me and was one
>> of the major things that made me shift allmost entirely to the Flex road.
>>
> I doubt you need Catalyst to implement this workflow. What would really be
> the best way to implement it? Wouldn't it be using PS/FF and exporting to
> FXG and then having a way to inject FXG into your app? That sounds much
> more possible.
>
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
Posted by jude <fl...@gmail.com>.
I think it's a good long term investment. There is a lot already invested
in it. FXG is more like SVG 4.0. Also, there has been work done on the
compiler that produces optimized FXG. FXG is Flex' friend.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Yvon Sauvageau <ys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't convert your FXG to SVG for real though. The last time I tried SVG
> in FB 4.6, I got compile warnings that basically told me that SVG was a
> thing of the past and that I should use FXG.
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: "sébastien Paturel" <se...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 14:34:04 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
>
> On 10/5/2012 9:44 AM, sébastien Paturel wrote:
> >
> > by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
> > answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
>
> There has been some talk about that in the past. The general gist--as
> I understand it--was that they decided it would be better to create
> something which was closer to the Flash Player rending model.
>
> FXG and SVG are very close; as I understand it. I thought the Flex
> compiler supported SVG too? It may be an interesting experiment to
> convert all the FXG elements (and related skins) to SVG.
>
> --
> Jeffry Houser
> Technical Entrepreneur
> 203-379-0773
> --
> http://www.flextras.com?c=104
> UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
> --
> http://www.theflexshow.com
> http://www.jeffryhouser.com
> http://www.asktheflexpert.com
> --
> Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
>
>
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
Posted by Yvon Sauvageau <ys...@yahoo.com>.
Don't convert your FXG to SVG for real though. The last time I tried SVG in FB 4.6, I got compile warnings that basically told me that SVG was a thing of the past and that I should use FXG.
-----Original message-----
From: Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: "sébastien Paturel" <se...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 14:34:04 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
On 10/5/2012 9:44 AM, sébastien Paturel wrote:
>
> by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
> answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
There has been some talk about that in the past. The general gist--as
I understand it--was that they decided it would be better to create
something which was closer to the Flash Player rending model.
FXG and SVG are very close; as I understand it. I thought the Flex
compiler supported SVG too? It may be an interesting experiment to
convert all the FXG elements (and related skins) to SVG.
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
Posted by Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:44 AM, sébastien Paturel wrote:
>
>>
>> by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
>> answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
>>
>
> There has been some talk about that in the past. The general gist--as I
> understand it--was that they decided it would be better to create something
> which was closer to the Flash Player rending model.
>
> FXG and SVG are very close; as I understand it. I thought the Flex
> compiler supported SVG too? It may be an interesting experiment to convert
> all the FXG elements (and related skins) to SVG.
>
> --
> Jeffry Houser
> Technical Entrepreneur
> 203-379-0773
> --
> http://www.flextras.com?c=104
> UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
> --
> http://www.theflexshow.com
> http://www.jeffryhouser.com
> http://www.asktheflexpert.com
> --
> Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
>
>
Yes FXG is practically interchangeable with SVG markup. However, converting
FXG to SVG would be counterproductive. FXG enjoys optimizations on the
compiler that SVG does not, so it will always run more efficiently. At
least that is my understanding.
-omar
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
Posted by Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>.
On 10/5/2012 9:44 AM, sébastien Paturel wrote:
>
> by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
> answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
There has been some talk about that in the past. The general gist--as
I understand it--was that they decided it would be better to create
something which was closer to the Flash Player rending model.
FXG and SVG are very close; as I understand it. I thought the Flex
compiler supported SVG too? It may be an interesting experiment to
convert all the FXG elements (and related skins) to SVG.
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex?
Posted by sébastien Paturel <se...@gmail.com>.
But it seems that theres very little differences between the two.
IMO Adobe will drop FXG sooner or later.
Why should they keep with it if they don't keep Flex in their main strategy?
I think we will have to get back to an SVG based solution (with SVG
extension ?)
Le 05/10/2012 17:47, Alex Harui a écrit :
>
>
> On 10/5/12 6:44 AM, "sébastien Paturel" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After Alex mentioned FXG, one important question comes to light:
>> should Apache Flex keep use FXG as skining tool?
> For now, yes.
>> as FXG is tightly linked to Adobe and its tools, can we count on Adobe
>> to continue to maintain the use of it? especially in Creative suite tools?
> Adobe has made no promises about FXG support into the future.
>> by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
>> answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
> I wasn't involved in that decision, but I think I recall overhearing some
> discussions about the mapping of SVG to Flash display objects. FXG files
> can be compiled very well into Flash SWF DefineXXX.
>
>
Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex? (was: Financing
the Design View AIR App (Was: Re: Design View AIR App))
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/5/12 6:44 AM, "sébastien Paturel" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After Alex mentioned FXG, one important question comes to light:
> should Apache Flex keep use FXG as skining tool?
For now, yes.
> as FXG is tightly linked to Adobe and its tools, can we count on Adobe
> to continue to maintain the use of it? especially in Creative suite tools?
Adobe has made no promises about FXG support into the future.
>
> by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the
> answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again)
I wasn't involved in that decision, but I think I recall overhearing some
discussions about the mapping of SVG to Flash display objects. FXG files
can be compiled very well into Flash SWF DefineXXX.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui