Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Hi,

seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting
vote mail.

Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have
more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as
important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch
(that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we
don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in
swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest.

Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here
expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki.

About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a
"utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from
flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have
1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0
beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to
start talking about that.

So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so
what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make
another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us
know following steps.

Thanks



2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>

> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment.  But an overall -1 for the lack of
> specifics in the proposal.
>
> Here are the things that are bothering me:
>
> 1.  We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to donate
> this code.  Were they supposed to mail on this list?  Are they going to
> stay involved.  We would need a champion in the community if there is going
> to be any hope of future Swiz releases.
> 2.  Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz going
> forward?  There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave alone
> new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS.  The same handful of committers are
> juggling all these things today.  There is absolutely no more bandwidth to
> take on more stuff.
> 3.  What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is
> brought under Apache Flex.  That we endorse it or not?  What about all the
> other frameworks?
> 4.  What does the Swiz community think of this?  Is there a mailing list
> that has a similar discussion going on?  Or is there no such community?
>
> Here are the alternatives I could think of:
> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no
> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases.  If there is
> enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at
> which point we could give it a separate Flex repo.
> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork it
> to a GitHub repo.  If they are able to make at least one release from
> there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex.
>
> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and
> resolve them.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <du...@atheist.com> wrote:
>
> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if
> > that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the
> > best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated
> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those
> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if
> > that is possible at all).
> >
> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP
> > compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland
> > Zwaga).
> >
> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui:
> > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's
> we're
> > > seeing.
> > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after
> > > some discussing with those voting -1?
> > >
> > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo.
> > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own
> > > releases and not be part of an SDK release.
> > >
> > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a
> > > committer did try to add AOP into the SDK.  Would that conflict with
> the
> > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks?  Or is the expectation
> that
> > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of
> > AOP?
> > >  Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more
> love
> > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed"
> framework,
> > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <je...@spoon.as> wrote:
> > >
> > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of
> > the
> > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM
> > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
> > >>
> > >> +1 (binding)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > >> <ca...@apache.org>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After proposal thread
> > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes
> > >>> the vote thread.
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under
> > >>> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex
> > >> community.
> > >>>
> > >>> points to take into account:
> > >>>
> > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK
> > >>> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and
> > >>> well designed.
> > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional
> > >>> a NOT part of the main sdk.
> > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0,
> > >>> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade
> > >>> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex
> > >>> technology.
> > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content.
> > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of
> > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP
> > >>> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex
> > >>> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and
> that
> > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time
> > >> weaving).
> > >>>
> > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation:
> > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation
> > >>> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC
> > >>> framework of use.
> > >>>
> > >>> Points to take into account:
> > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with it"
> > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Please make your vote.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>>
> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

It certainly could, in my opinion. I think these frameworks enhance
Flex and therefor enhance the Apache Flex project. I think there is
synergy to be had, both for 'users' and contributors.

EdB



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM, dude <du...@atheist.com> wrote:
> So Parsley could find a new home here as well?
>
> Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin:
>> The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
>> framework if/when those are donated as well.
>>
>> The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
>> endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
>> want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and
>> if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
>>> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
>>>
>>> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather
>>> than force you on our perspective way.
>>>
>>> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
>>> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
>>>
>>> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
>>> should include all of it.
>>>
>>> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Igor Costa
>>> www.igorcosta.com
>>> www.igorcosta.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>>>> negative vote.
>>>>
>>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>>>> I think.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.
>>>>
>>>> EdB
>>>>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/1/13 7:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> What steps are required from the author to make the donation?
>Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote
>would also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would
>allow one framework and not the other.
A software grant may be required.  It depends on who owns it.  FlexUnit
came in via software grant, IIRC.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> What steps are required from the author to make the donation? 
Having them mailing the mailing list would probably be enough. A vote would also need to be taken but I don't see any major reason why we would allow one framework and not the other.

> Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apache License 2.0.
Do we know if it been under Apache 2.0 from day 1? And if all contributions made to it have been under that license? Does it use any 3rd party software/libraries and if so what are they licences are they under? I don't think there any issues here but just checking.

I thing at a minimum we would also have someone who was willing to check all license headers on files (ie run rat), make sure it builds correctly in an apache environment and perhaps someone working with INFRA to transfer the existing JIRA issues.

IMO It would also be good if someone (committer or otherwise) was willing to make an initial release, do some maintenance on it, answer user questions on the list etc etc

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[dude <du...@atheist.com>]

What steps are required from the author to make the donation? Since he
has moved on to other things, I'd like to bother him as less as possible.

Parsley3/Spicelib3 are release under Apache License 2.0. The framework
consists of several libraries which can be found here
https://github.com/spicefactory . And there is a JIRA:
http://opensource.powerflasher.com/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa

Am 01.06.2013 22:14, schrieb Carlos Rovira:
> Right! why not? :)
> 
> I don't know too much about parsely but seems it's in the same state that
> Swiz. If AOP efforts progress all  frameworks like swiz and parsley could
> benefit from the hooks in the compiler to implement it and will need people
> behind it to make this evolution.
> 
> I think the only requeriment here is to have people interested in donate
> time and effort in the donation and subsequent maintenance of the source
> code...
> 
> 
> 2013/6/1 dude <du...@atheist.com>
> 
>> So Parsley could find a new home here as well?
>>
>> Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin:
>>> The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
>>> framework if/when those are donated as well.
>>>
>>> The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
>>> endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
>>> want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and
>>> if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it.
>>>
>>> EdB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't
>> simple
>>>> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
>>>>
>>>> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code,
>> rather
>>>> than force you on our perspective way.
>>>>
>>>> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
>>>> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
>>>>
>>>> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
>>>> should include all of it.
>>>>
>>>> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Igor Costa
>>>> www.igorcosta.com
>>>> www.igorcosta.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>>>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>>>>> negative vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>>>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>>>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>>>>> I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>> donation.
>>>>>
>>>>> EdB
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Right! why not? :)

I don't know too much about parsely but seems it's in the same state that
Swiz. If AOP efforts progress all  frameworks like swiz and parsley could
benefit from the hooks in the compiler to implement it and will need people
behind it to make this evolution.

I think the only requeriment here is to have people interested in donate
time and effort in the donation and subsequent maintenance of the source
code...


2013/6/1 dude <du...@atheist.com>

> So Parsley could find a new home here as well?
>
> Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin:
> > The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
> > framework if/when those are donated as well.
> >
> > The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
> > endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
> > want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and
> > if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it.
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't
> simple
> >> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
> >>
> >> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code,
> rather
> >> than force you on our perspective way.
> >>
> >> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
> >> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
> >>
> >> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
> >> should include all of it.
> >>
> >> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------
> >> Igor Costa
> >> www.igorcosta.com
> >> www.igorcosta.org
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> >>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> >>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> >>> negative vote.
> >>>
> >>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> >>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> >>> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> >>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> >>> I think.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> donation.
> >>>
> >>> EdB
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[dude <du...@atheist.com>]

So Parsley could find a new home here as well?

Am 01.06.2013 18:54, schrieb Erik de Bruin:
> The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
> framework if/when those are donated as well.
> 
> The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
> endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
> want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and
> if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it.
> 
> EdB
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
>> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
>>
>> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather
>> than force you on our perspective way.
>>
>> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
>> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
>>
>> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
>> should include all of it.
>>
>> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> Igor Costa
>> www.igorcosta.com
>> www.igorcosta.org
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>>> negative vote.
>>>
>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>>> I think.
>>>
>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.
>>>
>>> EdB
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

The way we voted to include Swiz will be applied to any other
framework if/when those are donated as well.

The fact that Swiz gets a home at Apache Flex doesn't mean it will be
endorsed as the one and only option. People get to chose what they
want to use - the SDK isn't and won't be tied to any framework - and
if they chose to use Swiz, they can find it at Apache Flex. That's it.

EdB



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
> have a MVC approach into the SDK.
>
> My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather
> than force you on our perspective way.
>
> For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
> coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.
>
> We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
> should include all of it.
>
> For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Igor Costa
> www.igorcosta.com
> www.igorcosta.org
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>> negative vote.
>>
>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>> I think.
>>
>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.
>>
>> EdB
>>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Igor Costa <ig...@gmail.com>]

A year back, someone at Flex Brazil group asked me why we couldn't simple
have a MVC approach into the SDK.

My short answer was We prefer you decide which way you want to code, rather
than force you on our perspective way.

For mature and freedom of choice we should not have such only a way of
coding, like explicit someone to code on that specific way.

We have a plethora of Flex frameworks out there, if we include one, we
should include all of it.

For the freedom of choice that's why I voted -1.




----------------------------
Igor Costa
www.igorcosta.com
www.igorcosta.org


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> negative vote.
>
> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> I think.
>
> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.
>
> EdB
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Sumudu Chinthaka <cs...@gmail.com>]

really looking forward about this, i have being missing swiz for mobile app
development lot so once the donation took place hope there will be new
development towards swiz mobile application support

Thanks
Sumudu


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Carlos Rovira <
carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:

> Ok Erik,
>
> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain
> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc
> microarquitecture.
>
> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>
> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate
> the source code and wiki
>
> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>
> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> > negative vote.
> >
> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> > I think.
> >
> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> donation.
> >
> > EdB
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[João Fernandes <jo...@gmail.com>]

Sebastian, you should open a new thread :)


On 3 June 2013 17:22, Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
> information can be found here [1].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>
>
> --
> Sebastian (PPMC)
> Interaction Designer
>
> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carlos.
> >
> > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> > close the vote.
> >
> > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
> without
> > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> > officially closed.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
> > >and I open a new one just now.
> > >
> > >
> > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >
> > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> > >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> > >>
> > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> > >>
> > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> > >> has been called?
> > >>
> > >> EdB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
> Om.
> > >> I
> > >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
> reads
> > >>as
> > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
> of
> > >>the
> > >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> > >> >
> > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> > >>picking
> > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
> some
> > >>of
> > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> > >>what
> > >> is
> > >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> > >>code
> > >> is
> > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
> going
> > >>to
> > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
> > >>set
> > >> of
> > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> > >>makes
> > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
> consider
> > >>the
> > >> > number of -1's.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
> go
> > >> into
> > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
> > >>SDK.
> > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> > >>People
> > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > >> > favoritism.
> > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> > >> process.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
> or
> > >> -1's
> > >> > without qualifications.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Alex
> > >> >
> > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
> not
> > >> been
> > >> >>addressed.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> > >> >>folder
> > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
> main
> > >> >>repo?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks,
> > >> >>Om
> > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> > >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Ok Erik,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> > >>(Igor
> > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> > >>already
> > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> > >> >>>maintain
> > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
> preferred
> > >> >>>mvc-ioc
> > >> >>> microarquitecture.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
> of
> > >> >>>donate
> > >> >>> the source code and wiki
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Carlos
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> > >> declined
> > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> > >>casting a
> > >> >>> > negative vote.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
> hoops
> > >>he
> > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
> > >>we
> > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> > >>more,
> > >> >>> > I think.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > >> >>> donation.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > EdB
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>
> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>
> > >> T. 06-51952295
> > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >Director de Tecnología
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >http://www.directwriter.es
> > >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
>



-- 

João Fernandes

RE: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

["Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>]

So, the argument again becomes one tool for all jobs...

Perhaps there are a multitude of MVC approaches because they each have their specialty and one should choose the solution based on the problem, not by precognition.

Mike


2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com>

> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it 
> be Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More 
> information can be found here [1].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>
>
> --
> Sebastian (PPMC)
> Interaction Designer
>
> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Velasco <ca...@gmail.com>]

I deeply disagree to that statement. There is not an unique valid way to
approach a development and having so many frameworks sums to make better
the FLEX ecosystem.


2013/6/3 Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com>

> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
> information can be found here [1].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>
>
> --
> Sebastian (PPMC)
> Interaction Designer
>
> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carlos.
> >
> > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> > close the vote.
> >
> > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
> without
> > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> > officially closed.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
> > >and I open a new one just now.
> > >
> > >
> > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >
> > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> > >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> > >>
> > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> > >>
> > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> > >> has been called?
> > >>
> > >> EdB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
> Om.
> > >> I
> > >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
> reads
> > >>as
> > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
> of
> > >>the
> > >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> > >> >
> > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> > >>picking
> > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
> some
> > >>of
> > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> > >>what
> > >> is
> > >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> > >>code
> > >> is
> > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
> going
> > >>to
> > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
> > >>set
> > >> of
> > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> > >>makes
> > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
> consider
> > >>the
> > >> > number of -1's.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
> go
> > >> into
> > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
> > >>SDK.
> > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> > >>People
> > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > >> > favoritism.
> > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> > >> process.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
> or
> > >> -1's
> > >> > without qualifications.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Alex
> > >> >
> > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
> not
> > >> been
> > >> >>addressed.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> > >> >>folder
> > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
> main
> > >> >>repo?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks,
> > >> >>Om
> > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> > >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Ok Erik,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> > >>(Igor
> > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> > >>already
> > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> > >> >>>maintain
> > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
> preferred
> > >> >>>mvc-ioc
> > >> >>> microarquitecture.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
> of
> > >> >>>donate
> > >> >>> the source code and wiki
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Carlos
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> > >> declined
> > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> > >>casting a
> > >> >>> > negative vote.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
> hoops
> > >>he
> > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
> > >>we
> > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> > >>more,
> > >> >>> > I think.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > >> >>> donation.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > EdB
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>
> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>
> > >> T. 06-51952295
> > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >Director de Tecnología
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >http://www.directwriter.es
> > >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>]

Interesting..., to me, some are light weight, some full featured, some 
complex, some simple, I guess the choice of a framework very depends on the 
project needs (and probably at time, the knowledge of the team on the 
framework).

-Fred

-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Sebastian Mohr
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:22 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
information can be found here [1].

[1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex


-- 
Sebastian (PPMC)
Interaction Designer

Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample



On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

> Thanks Carlos.
>
> When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> close the vote.
>
> @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without
> a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> officially closed.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
> >and I open a new one just now.
> >
> >
> >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >
> >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> >>
> >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> >>
> >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> >> has been called?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.
> >> I
> >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads
> >>as
> >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of
> >>the
> >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> >> >
> >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> >>picking
> >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some
> >>of
> >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> >>what
> >> is
> >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> >>code
> >> is
> >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going
> >>to
> >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
> >>set
> >> of
> >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> >>makes
> >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider
> >>the
> >> > number of -1's.
> >> >
> >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> >> >
> >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go
> >> into
> >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
> >>SDK.
> >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> >>People
> >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> >> > favoritism.
> >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> >> process.
> >> >
> >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or
> >> -1's
> >> > without qualifications.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
> >> been
> >> >>addressed.
> >> >>
> >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> >> >>folder
> >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
> >> >>repo?
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks,
> >> >>Om
> >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Ok Erik,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> >>(Igor
> >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> >>already
> >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> >> >>>maintain
> >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> >> >>>mvc-ioc
> >> >>> microarquitecture.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention 
> >> >>> of
> >> >>>donate
> >> >>> the source code and wiki
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Carlos
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> >> declined
> >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> >>casting a
> >> >>> > negative vote.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops
> >>he
> >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
> >>we
> >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> >>more,
> >> >>> > I think.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> >> >>> donation.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > EdB
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >Director de Tecnología
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >http://www.directwriter.es
> >http://www.avant2.es
>
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[dude <du...@atheist.com>]

> Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box
IMHO no, that is not needed, because Flex can be used to create an
MVC/MVVC/MVP/you-name-it architecture out of the box without any framework.

And wouldn't that be like integrating Spring into Java?

> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market.
How?

Am 03.06.2013 18:22, schrieb Sebastian Mohr:
> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
> information can be found here [1].
> 
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Send an email to flex-unsubscribe@flex.apache.org

Sad to see you go :-( Can you maybe tell us why you are leaving?

EdB



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Marcelo Fabricio de Mello
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> How can i unsubscribe this list !?
> tks,
>
> Marcelo
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
>> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
>> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and
>> forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex
>> has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code
>> (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
>> though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
>> easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
>> SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
>> nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
>> most situations).
>> Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the
>> Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
>> other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
>> like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
>> frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
>> Max
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr <flex.masuland@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
>> > Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
>> > Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
>> > information can be found here [1].
>> >
>> > [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sebastian (PPMC)
>> > Interaction Designer
>> >
>> > Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
>> > http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks Carlos.
>> > >
>> > > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
>> > > close the vote.
>> > >
>> > > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
>> > without
>> > > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
>> > > officially closed.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks again,
>> > > -Alex
>> > >
>> > > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this
>> thread
>> > > >and I open a new one just now.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> > > >
>> > > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
>> > > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
>> > > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
>> > > >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being
>> donated,
>> > > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
>> > > >> has been called?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> EdB
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
>> > Om.
>> > > >> I
>> > > >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
>> > reads
>> > > >>as
>> > > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
>> > of
>> > > >>the
>> > > >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
>> > > >>picking
>> > > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
>> > > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
>> > some
>> > > >>of
>> > > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
>> > > >>what
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
>> > > >>code
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
>> > going
>> > > >>to
>> > > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make
>> a
>> > > >>set
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
>> > > >>makes
>> > > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
>> > consider
>> > > >>the
>> > > >> > number of -1's.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
>> > go
>> > > >> into
>> > > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
>> > > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from
>> the
>> > > >>SDK.
>> > > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
>> > > >>People
>> > > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
>> > > >> > favoritism.
>> > > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
>> > > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
>> > > >> process.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
>> > or
>> > > >> -1's
>> > > >> > without qualifications.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > -Alex
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
>> > not
>> > > >> been
>> > > >> >>addressed.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a
>> contrib
>> > > >> >>folder
>> > > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
>> > main
>> > > >> >>repo?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>Thanks,
>> > > >> >>Om
>> > > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
>> > > >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>> > > >> >>wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> Ok Erik,
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding
>> vote
>> > > >>(Igor
>> > > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
>> > > >>already
>> > > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention
>> to
>> > > >> >>>maintain
>> > > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
>> > preferred
>> > > >> >>>mvc-ioc
>> > > >> >>> microarquitecture.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's
>> intention
>> > of
>> > > >> >>>donate
>> > > >> >>> the source code and wiki
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Carlos
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare
>> it
>> > > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
>> > > >> declined
>> > > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
>> > > >>casting a
>> > > >> >>> > negative vote.
>> > > >> >>> >
>> > > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
>> > hoops
>> > > >>he
>> > > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts
>> us-
>> > > >>we
>> > > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
>> > > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>> > > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a
>> bit
>> > > >>more,
>> > > >> >>> > I think.
>> > > >> >>> >
>> > > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of
>> this
>> > > >> >>> donation.
>> > > >> >>> >
>> > > >> >>> > EdB
>> > > >> >>> >
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> --
>> > > >> >>> Carlos Rovira
>> > > >> >>> Director de Tecnología
>> > > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> > > >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> > > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> > > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> > > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Ix Multimedia Software
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> > > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> > > >>
>> > > >> T. 06-51952295
>> > > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >--
>> > > >Carlos Rovira
>> > > >Director de Tecnología
>> > > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> > > >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> > > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> > > >http://www.directwriter.es
>> > > >http://www.avant2.es
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Marcelo Fabricio de Mello <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi guys,


How can i unsubscribe this list !?
tks,

Marcelo





2013/6/3 Maxime Cowez <ma...@gmail.com>

> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and
> forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex
> has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code
> (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
> though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
> easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
> SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
> nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
> most situations).
> Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the
> Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
> other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
> like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
> frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
> Max
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr <flex.masuland@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> > Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> > Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
> > information can be found here [1].
> >
> > [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian (PPMC)
> > Interaction Designer
> >
> > Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
> > http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Carlos.
> > >
> > > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> > > close the vote.
> > >
> > > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
> > without
> > > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> > > officially closed.
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this
> thread
> > > >and I open a new one just now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > > >
> > > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> > > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> > > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> > > >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> > > >>
> > > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being
> donated,
> > > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> > > >> has been called?
> > > >>
> > > >> EdB
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
> > Om.
> > > >> I
> > > >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
> > reads
> > > >>as
> > > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
> > of
> > > >>the
> > > >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> > > >>picking
> > > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> > > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
> > some
> > > >>of
> > > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> > > >>what
> > > >> is
> > > >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> > > >>code
> > > >> is
> > > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
> > going
> > > >>to
> > > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make
> a
> > > >>set
> > > >> of
> > > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> > > >>makes
> > > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
> > consider
> > > >>the
> > > >> > number of -1's.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
> > go
> > > >> into
> > > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from
> the
> > > >>SDK.
> > > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> > > >>People
> > > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > > >> > favoritism.
> > > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> > > >> process.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
> > or
> > > >> -1's
> > > >> > without qualifications.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Alex
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> > > >>wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
> > not
> > > >> been
> > > >> >>addressed.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a
> contrib
> > > >> >>folder
> > > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
> > main
> > > >> >>repo?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Thanks,
> > > >> >>Om
> > > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> > > >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > > >> >>wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Ok Erik,
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding
> vote
> > > >>(Igor
> > > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> > > >>already
> > > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention
> to
> > > >> >>>maintain
> > > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
> > preferred
> > > >> >>>mvc-ioc
> > > >> >>> microarquitecture.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's
> intention
> > of
> > > >> >>>donate
> > > >> >>> the source code and wiki
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Carlos
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare
> it
> > > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> > > >> declined
> > > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> > > >>casting a
> > > >> >>> > negative vote.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
> > hoops
> > > >>he
> > > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts
> us-
> > > >>we
> > > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> > > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a
> bit
> > > >>more,
> > > >> >>> > I think.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of
> this
> > > >> >>> donation.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > EdB
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> --
> > > >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> > > >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> > > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> > > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > >>
> > > >> T. 06-51952295
> > > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Carlos Rovira
> > > >Director de Tecnología
> > > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > >http://www.directwriter.es
> > > >http://www.avant2.es
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/3/13 6:49 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:

>
>On 6/3/2013 7:44 PM, Lee Burrows wrote:
>>
>> "while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't
>> clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That
>> would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and
>> Apache is not an historical archive.
>>
>> "in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer
>> wish to support a separate community around those bodies of code" - If
>> nobody is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it
>> on a free github account), how useful a project is it?
>
>  I have had similar thoughts; but Lee stated them much more elegantly
>than I.  ( Thanks Lee).
Yup, and your reasoning is well-considered.  I'm not sure there is a
'right' answer, but IMO, we're all here to change the expected 'evolution'
of Adobe's move away from in-house development of Flex.  But we do have to
keep an eye out for spreading ourselves too thin, showing favoritism for
one framework vs another, etc.

>
>  It is the primary reason I have been voting '0'.  I, personally don't
>see the mutual benefit to either project to get donated; but do not see
>any benefit in trying to block the donation from others who seem to care
>about it a lot more than I.
>
>  When I last commented on Swiz; one response was
>
>"there are a few contributors that never got their improvements / bug
>fixes merged to the project so anyone using swiz is missing those."
>
>http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.incubator.flex-dev#query:list%
>3Aorg.apache.incubator.flex-dev%20from%3A%22Jeffry%20Houser%22+page:1+mid:
>wsd6vm6tjp6mba6z+state:results
>
>  I have no idea how moving the project to Apache Flex will address that
>issue.
Because we have a process, any Apache Flex committer can make those
changes to the code base and create a release candidate.  And if anyone is
that motivated, I will take the time to review the candidate, and I hope
the others voting for donation will as well.  And that's a better chance
than I think the situation would be otherwise.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>]

On 6/3/2013 7:44 PM, Lee Burrows wrote:
>
> "while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't 
> clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That 
> would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and 
> Apache is not an historical archive.
>
> "in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer 
> wish to support a separate community around those bodies of code" - If 
> nobody is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it 
> on a free github account), how useful a project is it?

  I have had similar thoughts; but Lee stated them much more elegantly 
than I.  ( Thanks Lee).

  It is the primary reason I have been voting '0'.  I, personally don't 
see the mutual benefit to either project to get donated; but do not see 
any benefit in trying to block the donation from others who seem to care 
about it a lot more than I.

  When I last commented on Swiz; one response was

"there are a few contributors that never got their improvements / bug 
fixes merged to the project so anyone using swiz is missing those."

http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.incubator.flex-dev#query:list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.flex-dev%20from%3A%22Jeffry%20Houser%22+page:1+mid:wsd6vm6tjp6mba6z+state:results

  I have no idea how moving the project to Apache Flex will address that 
issue.


-- 
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
203-379-0773

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>]

With the greatest of respect, I have to disagree - i dont think it is 
reasonable to accept donations for the reasons you suggest.

"while they could continue to exist in GitHub or Google Code, it isn't 
clear that anyone is really around to handle questions or bugs" - That 
would still be true if the projects were part of Apache Flex, and Apache 
is not an historical archive.

"in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that they no longer wish 
to support a separate community around those bodies of code" - If nobody 
is willing to take ownership of a project (or at least put it on a free 
github account), how useful a project is it?

"we know we have active folks here who have used or developed these 
libraries and can contribute if needed" - They would would still help 
out if project were hosted elsewhere, wouldn't they?

Your argument seems to be 'if we dont save them, they will die'. I think 
we need to let evolution run its course - if a project is 
useful/important enough to the community, it will survive without Apache 
Flex's help.

"having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related libraries seems like 
a good thing to me" - Its only one-stop shopping it you use Swiz. I'm 
all for publicising the fact that there are great libraries for 
extending Flex, but wouldn't a page on the wiki be more appropriate? 
That way, everyone gets a mention.

Anyway, this is a democracy, so i'll accept the majority decision - but 
i really dont like it.


On 03/06/2013 22:21, Alex Harui wrote:
> Apache is about communities and open source software.  Creating new
> communities and projects is quite a bit of work, having just gone through
> it for Flex.  There are some popular libraries like Swiz, Parsley,
> FlexUnit, TLF, and more that, while they could continue to exist in GitHub
> or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle
> questions or bugs, and in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that
> they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of
> code.
>
> So, while I agree these libraries are not part of the Flex Framework, it
> seems reasonable to accept these donations because we know we have active
> folks here who have used or developed these libraries and can contribute
> if needed. And if we see a  separate community form around some of these
> libraries we can spin them off into their own projects.
>
> As the proposal stated, these libraries aren't destined to be integrated
> into the Flex SDK.  But having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related
> libraries seems like a good thing to me.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/3/13 10:53 AM, "Lee Burrows" <su...@leeburrows.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is
>> even occuring.
>>
>> This project is called "Apache Flex" after all, so why are other
>> projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end?
>> Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects
>> if the owner offers them?
>>
>> Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex
>> framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote:
>>> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
>>> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to
>>> write a
>>> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure
>>> and
>>> forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe
>>> Flex
>>> has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated
>>> code
>>> (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
>>> though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
>>> easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
>>> SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
>>> nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
>>> most situations).
>>> Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under
>>> the
>>> Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
>>> other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
>>> like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
>>> frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr
>>> <fl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
>>>> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC"
>>>> framework.
>>>> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
>>>> information can be found here [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sebastian (PPMC)
>>>> Interaction Designer
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this
>>>> code:
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Carlos.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
>>>>> close the vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
>>>> without
>>>>> a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
>>>>> officially closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>> and I open a new one just now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
>>>>>>> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
>>>>>>> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
>>>>>>> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being
>>>>>>> donated,
>>>>>>> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
>>>>>>> has been called?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
>>>> Om.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
>>>> reads
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
>>>>>>> picking
>>>>>>>> Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
>>>>>>>> welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
>>>> some
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>> people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
>>>> consider
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> number of -1's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
>>>> go
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
>>>>>>>> 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> SDK.
>>>>>>>> The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>> need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
>>>>>>>> favoritism.
>>>>>>>> 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
>>>>>>>> 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>> It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
>>>> or
>>>>>>> -1's
>>>>>>>> without qualifications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
>>>> not
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a
>>>>>>>>> contrib
>>>>>>>>> folder
>>>>>>>>> and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
>>>> main
>>>>>>>>> repo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Om
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
>>>>>>> <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok Erik,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
>>>>>>> (Igor
>>>>>>>>>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
>>>> preferred
>>>>>>>>>> mvc-ioc
>>>>>>>>>> microarquitecture.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> donate
>>>>>>>>>> the source code and wiki
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
>>>>>>> declined
>>>>>>>>>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
>>>>>>> casting a
>>>>>>>>>>> negative vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
>>>> hoops
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general
>>>>>>> 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>>>>>>>>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>>>>>>>>>> donation.
>>>>>>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>>>>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>>>>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T. 06-51952295
>>>>>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>
>> -- 
>> Lee Burrows
>> ActionScripter
>>
>


-- 
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

Apache is about communities and open source software.  Creating new
communities and projects is quite a bit of work, having just gone through
it for Flex.  There are some popular libraries like Swiz, Parsley,
FlexUnit, TLF, and more that, while they could continue to exist in GitHub
or Google Code, it isn't clear that anyone is really around to handle
questions or bugs, and in a few cases, the code owners have indicated that
they no longer wish to support a separate community around those bodies of
code.

So, while I agree these libraries are not part of the Flex Framework, it
seems reasonable to accept these donations because we know we have active
folks here who have used or developed these libraries and can contribute
if needed. And if we see a  separate community form around some of these
libraries we can spin them off into their own projects.

As the proposal stated, these libraries aren't destined to be integrated
into the Flex SDK.  But having one-stop shopping for Flex SDK and related
libraries seems like a good thing to me.

-Alex

On 6/3/13 10:53 AM, "Lee Burrows" <su...@leeburrows.com> wrote:

>I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is
>even occuring.
>
>This project is called "Apache Flex" after all, so why are other
>projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end?
>Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects
>if the owner offers them?
>
>Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex
>framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho.
>
>
>
>
>
>On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote:
>> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
>> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to
>>write a
>> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure
>>and
>> forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe
>>Flex
>> has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated
>>code
>> (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
>> though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
>> easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
>> SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
>> nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
>> most situations).
>> Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under
>>the
>> Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
>> other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
>> like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
>> frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
>> Max
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr
>><fl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
>>> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC"
>>>framework.
>>> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
>>> information can be found here [1].
>>>
>>> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sebastian (PPMC)
>>> Interaction Designer
>>>
>>> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this
>>>code:
>>> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Carlos.
>>>>
>>>> When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
>>>> close the vote.
>>>>
>>>> @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
>>> without
>>>> a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
>>>> officially closed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this
>>>>>thread
>>>>> and I open a new one just now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
>>>>>> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
>>>>>> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
>>>>>> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being
>>>>>>donated,
>>>>>> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
>>>>>> has been called?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
>>> Om.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
>>> reads
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
>>>>>> picking
>>>>>>> Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
>>>>>>> welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
>>> some
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
>>> going
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
>>>>>> set
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>> people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
>>> consider
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> number of -1's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
>>> go
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
>>>>>>> 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>> SDK.
>>>>>>> The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
>>>>>> People
>>>>>>> need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
>>>>>>> favoritism.
>>>>>>> 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
>>>>>>> 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>> It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
>>> or
>>>>>> -1's
>>>>>>> without qualifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
>>> not
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a
>>>>>>>>contrib
>>>>>>>> folder
>>>>>>>> and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
>>> main
>>>>>>>> repo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Om
>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
>>>>>> <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok Erik,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
>>>>>> (Igor
>>>>>>>>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
>>> preferred
>>>>>>>>> mvc-ioc
>>>>>>>>> microarquitecture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
>>> of
>>>>>>>>> donate
>>>>>>>>> the source code and wiki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>>>>>>>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
>>>>>> declined
>>>>>>>>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
>>>>>> casting a
>>>>>>>>>> negative vote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
>>> hoops
>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general
>>>>>> 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>>>>>>>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>>>>>>>>> donation.
>>>>>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>>>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>>>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T. 06-51952295
>>>>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>>
>
>
>-- 
>Lee Burrows
>ActionScripter
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>]

I have to admit to being a bit confused as to why this discussion is 
even occuring.

This project is called "Apache Flex" after all, so why are other 
projects, such as Swiz and FlexUnit, to be included. Where does it end? 
Do we include AS3CoreLib, Starling or any of the 100s of github projects 
if the owner offers them?

Swiz and FlexUnit are great projects - but they are not part of the Flex 
framework, and therefore don't belong here. Its as simple as that imho.





On 03/06/2013 18:24, Maxime Cowez wrote:
> @Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
> framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
> whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and
> forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex
> has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code
> (at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
> though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
> easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
> SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
> nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
> most situations).
> Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the
> Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
> other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
> like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
> frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
> Max
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
>> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
>> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
>> information can be found here [1].
>>
>> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian (PPMC)
>> Interaction Designer
>>
>> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
>> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Carlos.
>>>
>>> When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
>>> close the vote.
>>>
>>> @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
>> without
>>> a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
>>> officially closed.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
>>>> and I open a new one just now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
>>>>> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
>>>>> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
>>>>> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
>>>>> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
>>>>> has been called?
>>>>>
>>>>> EdB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>> My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
>> Om.
>>>>> I
>>>>>> guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
>> reads
>>>>> as
>>>>>> -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
>>>>> picking
>>>>>> Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
>>>>>> welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
>> some
>>>>> of
>>>>>> these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
>>>>> what
>>>>> is
>>>>>> going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
>>>>> code
>>>>> is
>>>>>> going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>>> warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
>>>>> set
>>>>> of
>>>>>> significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
>>>>> makes
>>>>>> people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
>> consider
>>>>> the
>>>>>> number of -1's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
>> go
>>>>> into
>>>>>> a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
>>>>>> 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
>>>>> SDK.
>>>>>> The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
>>>>> People
>>>>>> need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
>>>>>> favoritism.
>>>>>> 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
>>>>>> 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
>>>>> process.
>>>>>> It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
>> or
>>>>> -1's
>>>>>> without qualifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
>> not
>>>>> been
>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
>>>>>>> folder
>>>>>>> and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
>> main
>>>>>>> repo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Om
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
>>>>> <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok Erik,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
>>>>> (Igor
>>>>>>>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
>> preferred
>>>>>>>> mvc-ioc
>>>>>>>> microarquitecture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
>> of
>>>>>>>> donate
>>>>>>>> the source code and wiki
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>>>>>>>> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
>>>>> declined
>>>>>>>>> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
>>>>> casting a
>>>>>>>>> negative vote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
>> hoops
>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> can create a new repo for it: either a general
>>>>> 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>>>>>>>> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>>>>>>>> donation.
>>>>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> T. 06-51952295
>>>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>


-- 
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Maxime Cowez <ma...@gmail.com>]

@Sebastian: I could not disagree more. In my opinion Flex *is* an MVC
framework. It doesn't need an additional layer that requires me to write a
whole lot of boilerplate, unnecessarily complicates project structure and
forces me to adhere to some rules I often find questionable. I believe Flex
has all the tools for creating well-architectured, cleanly separated code
(at least since Flex 4). The one thing I miss is an IoC container (even
though I could get things done without it, but an IoC sure makes life
easier - as opposed to most MVC frameworks). For this I usually use
SwiftSuspenders because it is the only library that is *only* an IoC and
nothing else (except perhaps for Spring-AS, which I find too complex for
most situations).
Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't adopt frameworks like Swiz under the
Apache Flex umbrella (that's why I didn't vote: I don't like Swiz or any
other "MVC" framework, but other people should be able to use it if they
like). I'm saying that you really should not force people into such
frameworks. For me that would be a reason to drop Flex.
Max


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com>wrote:

> IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
> Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
> Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
> information can be found here [1].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex
>
>
> --
> Sebastian (PPMC)
> Interaction Designer
>
> Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
> http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carlos.
> >
> > When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> > close the vote.
> >
> > @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but
> without
> > a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> > officially closed.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
> > >and I open a new one just now.
> > >
> > >
> > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >
> > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> > >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> > >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> > >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> > >>
> > >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> > >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> > >>
> > >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> > >> has been called?
> > >>
> > >> EdB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and
> Om.
> > >> I
> > >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still
> reads
> > >>as
> > >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation
> of
> > >>the
> > >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> > >> >
> > >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> > >>picking
> > >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> > >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading
> some
> > >>of
> > >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> > >>what
> > >> is
> > >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> > >>code
> > >> is
> > >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were
> going
> > >>to
> > >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
> > >>set
> > >> of
> > >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> > >>makes
> > >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to
> consider
> > >>the
> > >> > number of -1's.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could
> go
> > >> into
> > >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
> > >>SDK.
> > >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> > >>People
> > >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > >> > favoritism.
> > >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> > >> process.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's
> or
> > >> -1's
> > >> > without qualifications.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Alex
> > >> >
> > >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have
> not
> > >> been
> > >> >>addressed.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> > >> >>folder
> > >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a
> main
> > >> >>repo?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks,
> > >> >>Om
> > >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> > >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Ok Erik,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> > >>(Igor
> > >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> > >>already
> > >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> > >> >>>maintain
> > >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the
> preferred
> > >> >>>mvc-ioc
> > >> >>> microarquitecture.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention
> of
> > >> >>>donate
> > >> >>> the source code and wiki
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Carlos
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> > >> declined
> > >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> > >>casting a
> > >> >>> > negative vote.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some
> hoops
> > >>he
> > >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
> > >>we
> > >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> > >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> > >>more,
> > >> >>> > I think.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > >> >>> donation.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > EdB
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> > >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> > >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>
> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>
> > >> T. 06-51952295
> > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >Director de Tecnología
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >http://www.directwriter.es
> > >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Sebastian Mohr <fl...@gmail.com>]

IMO ... Apache Flex needs an MVC framework out of the box ... may it be
Parsley, Spring AS or Swiz. I'd call it then "Apache Flex MVC" framework.
Having that would bring more stability to the our Flex market. More
information can be found here [1].

[1] https://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/WhatsWrongWithFlex


-- 
Sebastian (PPMC)
Interaction Designer

Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample



On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

> Thanks Carlos.
>
> When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
> close the vote.
>
> @Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without
> a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
> officially closed.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
> >and I open a new one just now.
> >
> >
> >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >
> >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> >> want to add/amend in the new vote.
> >>
> >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
> >>
> >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> >> has been called?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.
> >> I
> >> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads
> >>as
> >> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of
> >>the
> >> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> >> >
> >> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
> >>picking
> >> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> >> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some
> >>of
> >> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
> >>what
> >> is
> >> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
> >>code
> >> is
> >> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going
> >>to
> >> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
> >>set
> >> of
> >> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
> >>makes
> >> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider
> >>the
> >> > number of -1's.
> >> >
> >> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> >> >
> >> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go
> >> into
> >> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> >> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
> >>SDK.
> >> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
> >>People
> >> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> >> > favoritism.
> >> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> >> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> >> process.
> >> >
> >> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or
> >> -1's
> >> > without qualifications.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
> >> been
> >> >>addressed.
> >> >>
> >> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> >> >>folder
> >> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
> >> >>repo?
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks,
> >> >>Om
> >> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
> >><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Ok Erik,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> >>(Igor
> >> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> >>already
> >> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> >> >>>maintain
> >> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> >> >>>mvc-ioc
> >> >>> microarquitecture.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
> >> >>>donate
> >> >>> the source code and wiki
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Carlos
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> >> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> >> declined
> >> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> >>casting a
> >> >>> > negative vote.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops
> >>he
> >> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
> >>we
> >> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
> >>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> >> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> >>more,
> >> >>> > I think.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> >> >>> donation.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > EdB
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> >>> Director de Tecnología
> >> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> >> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> >> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >Director de Tecnología
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >http://www.directwriter.es
> >http://www.avant2.es
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

Thanks Carlos.

When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially
close the vote.

@Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without
a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was
officially closed.

Thanks again,
-Alex

On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:

>I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
>and I open a new one just now.
>
>
>2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>
>> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
>> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
>> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
>> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>>
>> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
>> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>>
>> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
>> has been called?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.
>> I
>> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads
>>as
>> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of
>>the
>> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>> >
>> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not
>>picking
>> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
>> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some
>>of
>> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of
>>what
>> is
>> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP
>>code
>> is
>> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going
>>to
>> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a
>>set
>> of
>> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what
>>makes
>> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>> >
>> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider
>>the
>> > number of -1's.
>> >
>> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>> >
>> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go
>> into
>> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
>> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the
>>SDK.
>> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.
>>People
>> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
>> > favoritism.
>> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
>> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
>> process.
>> >
>> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or
>> -1's
>> > without qualifications.
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
>> been
>> >>addressed.
>> >>
>> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
>> >>folder
>> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
>> >>repo?
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Om
>> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira"
>><ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Ok Erik,
>> >>>
>> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
>>(Igor
>> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
>>already
>> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
>> >>>maintain
>> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
>> >>>mvc-ioc
>> >>> microarquitecture.
>> >>>
>> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
>> >>>donate
>> >>> the source code and wiki
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Carlos
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> >>>
>> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
>> declined
>> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
>>casting a
>> >>> > negative vote.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops
>>he
>> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us-
>>we
>> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general
>>'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
>>more,
>> >>> > I think.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>> >>> donation.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > EdB
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Carlos Rovira
>> >>> Director de Tecnología
>> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> >>> http://www.avant2.es
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>Director de Tecnología
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>http://www.codeoscopic.com
>http://www.directwriter.es
>http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread
and I open a new one just now.


2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>

> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
> want to add/amend in the new vote.
>
> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.
>
> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
> has been called?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.  I
> > guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as
> > -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the
> > proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
> >
> > The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking
> > Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> > welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some of
> > these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what
> is
> > going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code
> is
> > going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going to
> > warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set
> of
> > significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes
> > people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
> >
> > Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the
> > number of -1's.
> >
> > I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
> >
> > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go
> into
> > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK.
> > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.  People
> > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> > favoritism.
> > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same
> process.
> >
> > It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or
> -1's
> > without qualifications.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
> been
> >>addressed.
> >>
> >>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> >>folder
> >>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
> >>repo?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Om
> >>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok Erik,
> >>>
> >>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
> >>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
> >>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> >>>maintain
> >>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> >>>mvc-ioc
> >>> microarquitecture.
> >>>
> >>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> >>>
> >>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
> >>>donate
> >>> the source code and wiki
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Carlos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >>>
> >>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> >>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> declined
> >>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> >>> > negative vote.
> >>> >
> >>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> >>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> >>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> >>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> >>> > I think.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> >>> donation.
> >>> >
> >>> > EdB
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Director de Tecnología
> >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >>> http://www.directwriter.es
> >>> http://www.avant2.es
> >>>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second
(or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been
discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you
want to add/amend in the new vote.

Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated,
so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary.

A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result
has been called?

EdB



On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.  I
> guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as
> -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the
> proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
>
> The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking
> Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
> welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some of
> these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is
> going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is
> going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going to
> warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of
> significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes
> people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.
>
> Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the
> number of -1's.
>
> I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that
>
> 1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go into
> a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
> 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK.
> The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.  People
> need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
> favoritism.
> 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
> 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process.
>
> It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's
> without qualifications.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
>>addressed.
>>
>>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
>>folder
>>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
>>repo?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Om
>>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Ok Erik,
>>>
>>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
>>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
>>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
>>>maintain
>>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
>>>mvc-ioc
>>> microarquitecture.
>>>
>>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>>
>>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
>>>donate
>>> the source code and wiki
>>>
>>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>
>>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>>> > negative vote.
>>> >
>>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>>> > I think.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>>> donation.
>>> >
>>> > EdB
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Director de Tecnología
>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>
>



--
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

My count is now three binding -1's.  Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om.  I
guess I'll add a fourth.  Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as
-1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the
proposal.  Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.

The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking
Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are
welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote.  Reading some of
these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is
going to happen in the future.  I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is
going to be moved into the framework or not.  I thought we were going to
warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of
significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes
people think we're endorsing or playing favorites.

Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the
number of -1's.

I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that

1) Swiz goes in its own repo.  The original proposal says it could go into
a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model.
2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK.
The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal.  People
need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or
favoritism.
3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism.
4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process.

It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's
without qualifications.

-Alex

On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
>addressed.
>
>If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
>folder
>and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
>repo?
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Ok Erik,
>>
>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
>>maintain
>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
>>mvc-ioc
>> microarquitecture.
>>
>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>
>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
>>donate
>> the source code and wiki
>>
>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>
>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>> > negative vote.
>> >
>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>> > I think.
>> >
>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>> donation.
>> >
>> > EdB
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> Director de Tecnología
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> http://www.avant2.es
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

You hid your vote well... you did +1 and -1 in two short sentences.
Re-reading helped a bit, but - at least for non-native speakers - it
was very ambivalent.

I think most of your concerns have been addressed in one way or
another, or will (must) be addressed during the coming process of
donation.

Just to clarify any misunderstanding: a -1 vote is only a veto when it
concerns a commit and is accompanied by a technical reason for the
veto. For all other types of voting, -1 is just a vote against the
proposal and will get equal weighing in the final tally.

EdB



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
> addressed.
>
> If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder
> and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
> On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok Erik,
>>
>> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
>> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
>> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain
>> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc
>> microarquitecture.
>>
>> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>>
>> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate
>> the source code and wiki
>>
>> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>>
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>
>> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
>> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
>> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
>> > negative vote.
>> >
>> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
>> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
>> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
>> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
>> > I think.
>> >
>> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
>> donation.
>> >
>> > EdB
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> Director de Tecnología
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> http://www.avant2.es
>>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Hi Om,

I can make the blog post, but we should wait until Chris Scott write the
email with his intention of donation. Then we can make the official blog
post to make the announcement to the world. And we will put special wording
in make clear that this donation should not be seen as giving any special
endorsement to swiz in apache flex regarding other projects of the same
flavor.



2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>

> My bad for not voting clearly.
>
> If you two are confident that we can make a release of Swiz in a reasonable
> timeframe, I am cool with it.
>
> It would bode well for us if we make a blog post making it clear that we
> support all other frameworks as well.  Can someone come up with such a post
> and put it up for discussion here?  Once we have consensus about the
> content of the blog post, we can publish it.
>
> And Erik, I do agree that this is not something that can be vetoed.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
> On Jun 1, 2013 10:34 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Om,
> >
> > your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so
> > the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express
> > something but not state a final vote.
> >
> > Regarding the "contrib" folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the
> > Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions
> > and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then
> > I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start
> > discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this
> > concrete point.
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
> > been
> > > addressed.
> > >
> > > If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> > folder
> > > and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
> > repo?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Om
> > > On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok Erik,
> > > >
> > > > I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote
> (Igor
> > > > Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was
> already
> > > > explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> > > maintain
> > > > swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> > > mvc-ioc
> > > > microarquitecture.
> > > >
> > > > So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > > >
> > > > Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
> > > donate
> > > > the source code and wiki
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > > >
> > > > > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > > > > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> > declined
> > > > > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when
> casting a
> > > > > negative vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops
> he
> > > > > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> > > > > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz'
> or
> > > > > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit
> more,
> > > > > I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > > > donation.
> > > > >
> > > > > EdB
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > Director de Tecnología
> > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > > F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > > http://www.directwriter.es
> > > > http://www.avant2.es
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Director de Tecnología
> > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > http://www.directwriter.es
> > http://www.avant2.es
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

My bad for not voting clearly.

If you two are confident that we can make a release of Swiz in a reasonable
timeframe, I am cool with it.

It would bode well for us if we make a blog post making it clear that we
support all other frameworks as well.  Can someone come up with such a post
and put it up for discussion here?  Once we have consensus about the
content of the blog post, we can publish it.

And Erik, I do agree that this is not something that can be vetoed.

Thanks,
Om
On Jun 1, 2013 10:34 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
wrote:

> Sorry Om,
>
> your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so
> the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express
> something but not state a final vote.
>
> Regarding the "contrib" folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the
> Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions
> and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then
> I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start
> discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this
> concrete point.
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
>
> > I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not
> been
> > addressed.
> >
> > If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib
> folder
> > and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main
> repo?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> > On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok Erik,
> > >
> > > I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
> > > Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
> > > explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> > maintain
> > > swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> > mvc-ioc
> > > microarquitecture.
> > >
> > > So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> > >
> > > Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
> > donate
> > > the source code and wiki
> > >
> > > Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> > >
> > > > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > > > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he
> declined
> > > > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> > > > negative vote.
> > > >
> > > > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> > > > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> > > > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > > > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> > > > I think.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > > donation.
> > > >
> > > > EdB
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > Director de Tecnología
> > > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > > http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > http://www.directwriter.es
> > > http://www.avant2.es
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Sorry Om,

your mail was confusing since it had -1 and +1 votes in the same mail, so
the external lecture was that it was only an opinion and want to express
something but not state a final vote.

Regarding the "contrib" folder, I'm not a supporter of this idea in the
Swiz case, since in my case we already released three more minor versions
and would want to commit those updates here (to get 1.4.3 version). Then
I'd want to enter 2.0.0 beta donation and set the playground to start
discussing compile-time weaving and AOP. Just my 2 cnts in regarding this
concrete point.

Best




2013/6/1 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>

> I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
> addressed.
>
> If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder
> and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
> On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok Erik,
> >
> > I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
> > Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
> > explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to
> maintain
> > swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred
> mvc-ioc
> > microarquitecture.
> >
> > So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
> >
> > Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of
> donate
> > the source code and wiki
> >
> > Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
> >
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> >
> > > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> > > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> > > negative vote.
> > >
> > > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> > > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> > > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> > > I think.
> > >
> > > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> > donation.
> > >
> > > EdB
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Director de Tecnología
> > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> > http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > http://www.directwriter.es
> > http://www.avant2.es
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been
addressed.

If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib folder
and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main repo?

Thanks,
Om
On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
wrote:

> Ok Erik,
>
> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain
> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc
> microarquitecture.
>
> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.
>
> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate
> the source code and wiki
>
> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.
>
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>
> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> > negative vote.
> >
> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> > I think.
> >
> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this
> donation.
> >
> > EdB
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Ok Erik,

I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor
Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already
explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to maintain
swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred mvc-ioc
microarquitecture.

So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here.

Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of donate
the source code and wiki

Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here.


Carlos



2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>

> I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
> invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
> to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
> negative vote.
>
> Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
> has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
> can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
> a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
> I think.
>
> Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.
>
> EdB
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it
invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined
to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a
negative vote.

Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he
has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we
can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or
a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more,
I think.

Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this donation.

EdB

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

The vote was open for more than 72 hours. I'm closing it.

Here are results:

+1 (binding)

Erik de Bruin
Greg Reddin
Justin Mclean
Fréderic Thomas

-1 (binding)

Igor Costa (no explanation)
Jeff Tapper (he stated "unless there are assurances that this will not be
part of the
main branch, but instead live in a separate repo", that was clearly stated
in the main vote thread)

0 (binding)

Jeffry Houser

+1 (non-binding)

Carlos Rovira
Margo Powell
Ben Dalton
Jose Barragan
Mark Kessler
Joao Fernandes
Nick Collins
Cyrill Zadra
Arnoud Bos

-1 (non binding)

Carlo Velasco (he doesn't see as a polite movement)


As Alex stated, we can declare the vote null and start another, as well I
emailed Chris Scott and he will email this list exposing his intention of
donation.

Thanks to all for participating

Best,

Carlos



2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>

> Hi,
>
> here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who
> open the vote)
>
>
>
> 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
>> since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
>> explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting
>> vote mail.
>>
>> Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have
>> more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as
>> important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch
>> (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we
>> don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in
>> swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest.
>>
>> Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here
>> expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki.
>>
>> About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a
>> "utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from
>> flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have
>> 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0
>> beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to
>> start talking about that.
>>
>> So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so
>> what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make
>> another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us
>> know following steps.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment.  But an overall -1 for the lack of
>>> specifics in the proposal.
>>>
>>> Here are the things that are bothering me:
>>>
>>> 1.  We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to
>>> donate
>>> this code.  Were they supposed to mail on this list?  Are they going to
>>> stay involved.  We would need a champion in the community if there is
>>> going
>>> to be any hope of future Swiz releases.
>>> 2.  Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz
>>> going
>>> forward?  There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave
>>> alone
>>> new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS.  The same handful of committers are
>>> juggling all these things today.  There is absolutely no more bandwidth
>>> to
>>> take on more stuff.
>>> 3.  What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is
>>> brought under Apache Flex.  That we endorse it or not?  What about all
>>> the
>>> other frameworks?
>>> 4.  What does the Swiz community think of this?  Is there a mailing list
>>> that has a similar discussion going on?  Or is there no such community?
>>>
>>> Here are the alternatives I could think of:
>>> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no
>>> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases.  If there
>>> is
>>> enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases,
>>> at
>>> which point we could give it a separate Flex repo.
>>> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork
>>> it
>>> to a GitHub repo.  If they are able to make at least one release from
>>> there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex.
>>>
>>> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points
>>> and
>>> resolve them.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <du...@atheist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if
>>> > that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the
>>> > best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated
>>> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those
>>> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure
>>> if
>>> > that is possible at all).
>>> >
>>> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP
>>> > compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland
>>> > Zwaga).
>>> >
>>> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui:
>>> > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's
>>> we're
>>> > > seeing.
>>> > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe
>>> after
>>> > > some discussing with those voting -1?
>>> > >
>>> > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the
>>> repo.
>>> > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own
>>> > > releases and not be part of an SDK release.
>>> > >
>>> > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look
>>> if a
>>> > > committer did try to add AOP into the SDK.  Would that conflict with
>>> the
>>> > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks?  Or is the expectation
>>> that
>>> > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of
>>> > AOP?
>>> > >  Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more
>>> love
>>> > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed"
>>> framework,
>>> > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid.
>>> > >
>>> > > -Alex
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <je...@spoon.as> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part
>>> of
>>> > the
>>> > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>>> > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
>>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM
>>> > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
>>> > >>
>>> > >> +1 (binding)
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira
>>> > >> <ca...@apache.org>wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> After proposal thread
>>> > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes
>>> > >>> the vote thread.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under
>>> > >>> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex
>>> > >> community.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> points to take into account:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de
>>> SDK
>>> > >>> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple
>>> and
>>> > >>> well designed.
>>> > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's
>>> optional
>>> > >>> a NOT part of the main sdk.
>>> > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License
>>> 2.0,
>>> > >>> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade
>>> > >>> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex
>>> > >>> technology.
>>> > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content.
>>> > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of
>>> > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP
>>> > >>> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex
>>> > >>> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and
>>> that
>>> > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time
>>> > >> weaving).
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation:
>>> > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same
>>> situation
>>> > >>> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC
>>> > >>> framework of use.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Points to take into account:
>>> > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with
>>> it"
>>> > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Please make your vote.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Thanks
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Carlos Rovira
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> Director de Tecnología
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> http://www.avant2.es
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>]

Hi,

here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who
open the vote)



2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>

> Hi,
>
> seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
> since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
> explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting
> vote mail.
>
> Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have
> more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as
> important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch
> (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we
> don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in
> swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest.
>
> Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here
> expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki.
>
> About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a
> "utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from
> flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have
> 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0
> beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to
> start talking about that.
>
> So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so
> what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make
> another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us
> know following steps.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
>
>> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment.  But an overall -1 for the lack of
>> specifics in the proposal.
>>
>> Here are the things that are bothering me:
>>
>> 1.  We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to
>> donate
>> this code.  Were they supposed to mail on this list?  Are they going to
>> stay involved.  We would need a champion in the community if there is
>> going
>> to be any hope of future Swiz releases.
>> 2.  Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz
>> going
>> forward?  There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave
>> alone
>> new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS.  The same handful of committers are
>> juggling all these things today.  There is absolutely no more bandwidth to
>> take on more stuff.
>> 3.  What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is
>> brought under Apache Flex.  That we endorse it or not?  What about all the
>> other frameworks?
>> 4.  What does the Swiz community think of this?  Is there a mailing list
>> that has a similar discussion going on?  Or is there no such community?
>>
>> Here are the alternatives I could think of:
>> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no
>> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases.  If there is
>> enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at
>> which point we could give it a separate Flex repo.
>> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork
>> it
>> to a GitHub repo.  If they are able to make at least one release from
>> there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex.
>>
>> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and
>> resolve them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <du...@atheist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if
>> > that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the
>> > best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated
>> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those
>> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if
>> > that is possible at all).
>> >
>> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP
>> > compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland
>> > Zwaga).
>> >
>> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui:
>> > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's
>> we're
>> > > seeing.
>> > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe
>> after
>> > > some discussing with those voting -1?
>> > >
>> > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the
>> repo.
>> > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own
>> > > releases and not be part of an SDK release.
>> > >
>> > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if
>> a
>> > > committer did try to add AOP into the SDK.  Would that conflict with
>> the
>> > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks?  Or is the expectation
>> that
>> > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of
>> > AOP?
>> > >  Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more
>> love
>> > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed"
>> framework,
>> > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid.
>> > >
>> > > -Alex
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <je...@spoon.as> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of
>> > the
>> > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo.
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM
>> > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 (binding)
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira
>> > >> <ca...@apache.org>wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After proposal thread
>> > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes
>> > >>> the vote thread.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under
>> > >>> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex
>> > >> community.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> points to take into account:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de
>> SDK
>> > >>> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple
>> and
>> > >>> well designed.
>> > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's
>> optional
>> > >>> a NOT part of the main sdk.
>> > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0,
>> > >>> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade
>> > >>> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex
>> > >>> technology.
>> > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content.
>> > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of
>> > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP
>> > >>> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex
>> > >>> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and
>> that
>> > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time
>> > >> weaving).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation:
>> > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same
>> situation
>> > >>> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC
>> > >>> framework of use.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Points to take into account:
>> > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with
>> it"
>> > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Please make your vote.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Carlos Rovira
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F:  +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

RE: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

[Jeff Tapper <je...@spoon.as>]

I have to respectfully disagree.  My -1 vote was conditional on knowing
exactly how the contribution would be handled (as Om and others have pointed
out).  I cannot in good faith vote in favor of this without the solutions to
the issues laid out being clear in the vote thread.

-----Original Message-----
From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Rovira
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:49 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex

Hi,

seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote
since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any
explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting
vote mail.

Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have
more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as
important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch
(that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't
do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz
miling list that he will donate it if there's interest.

Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here
expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki.

About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a
"utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from
flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have
1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0
beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to
start talking about that.

So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so
what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make
another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us
know following steps.

Thanks



2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>

> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment.  But an overall -1 for the lack 
> of specifics in the proposal.
>
> Here are the things that are bothering me:
>
> 1.  We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to 
> donate this code.  Were they supposed to mail on this list?  Are they 
> going to stay involved.  We would need a champion in the community if 
> there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases.
> 2.  Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz 
> going forward?  There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, 
> leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS.  The same handful of 
> committers are juggling all these things today.  There is absolutely 
> no more bandwidth to take on more stuff.
> 3.  What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is 
> brought under Apache Flex.  That we endorse it or not?  What about all 
> the other frameworks?
> 4.  What does the Swiz community think of this?  Is there a mailing 
> list that has a similar discussion going on?  Or is there no such
community?
>
> Here are the alternatives I could think of:
> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no 
> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases.  If 
> there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent 
> releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo.
> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to 
> fork it to a GitHub repo.  If they are able to make at least one 
> release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache
Flex.
>
> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points 
> and resolve them.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <du...@atheist.com> wrote:
>
> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but 
> > if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 
> > 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated 
> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those 
> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not 
> > sure if that is possible at all).
> >
> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing 
> > AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by 
> > Roland Zwaga).
> >
> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui:
> > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's
> we're
> > > seeing.
> > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe 
> > > after some discussing with those voting -1?
> > >
> > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the
repo.
> > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own 
> > > releases and not be part of an SDK release.
> > >
> > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look 
> > > if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK.  Would that 
> > > conflict with
> the
> > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks?  Or is the 
> > > expectation
> that
> > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation 
> > > of
> > AOP?
> > >  Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets 
> > > more
> love
> > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed"
> framework,
> > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <je...@spoon.as> wrote:
> > >
> > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be 
> > >> part of
> > the
> > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM
> > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex
> > >>
> > >> +1 (binding)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > >> <ca...@apache.org>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After proposal thread
> > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes
> > >>> the vote thread.
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework 
> > >>> under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the 
> > >>> Apache Flex
> > >> community.
> > >>>
> > >>> points to take into account:
> > >>>
> > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements 
> > >>> de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI 
> > >>> very simple and well designed.
> > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's 
> > >>> optional a NOT part of the main sdk.
> > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 
> > >>> 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or 
> > >>> upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working 
> > >>> with Flex technology.
> > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content.
> > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator 
> > >>> of
> > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings 
> > >>> AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to 
> > >>> Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web 
> > >>> technologies and
> that
> > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile 
> > >>> time
> > >> weaving).
> > >>>
> > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation:
> > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same 
> > >>> situation and this donation could make Swiz the 
> > >>> preferred/recommended IOC framework of use.
> > >>>
> > >>> Points to take into account:
> > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with
it"
> > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Please make your vote.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>>
> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>



--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es