You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Om <bi...@gmail.com> on 2013/03/14 18:36:25 UTC
FXG support in FlexJS
> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less vector
> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
>
>
This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG in
FlexJS?
Spark skinning paradigm is one of the best out there. Are we willing to
throw it out because HTML/JS cant support it? That is not a vision of Flex
that existing developers would like (including me)
At the very minimum, we should support the BitmapImage (and related
classes) That would be better than no FXG support at all.
As an aside, most FXG elements have SVG equivalents. In that sense FXG is
only an XSLT transformation away from SVG (I had to do the reverse
transformation for a project a while ago)
Most modern browsers support inlining SVG with HTML5 [1] If we can skin
HTML elements using SVG like this [2], that would be a big win for us.
This would bring us so much closer to how we skin MXML with FXG.
FYI, there is a whole bunch of inline SVG + HTML5 usage examples here [3]
Thanks,
Om
[1] http://caniuse.com/svg-html5
[2]
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5/svg_html/SVG_HTML_Elements_003.html
[3] http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5/svghtml_harness.htm
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by jude <fl...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less
> vector
> > graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
> > things get "skinned" in html/js/css
> >
> >
> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG in
> FlexJS?
>
> Spark skinning paradigm is one of the best out there. Are we willing to
> throw it out because HTML/JS cant support it? That is not a vision of Flex
> that existing developers would like (including me)
>
> At the very minimum, we should support the BitmapImage (and related
> classes) That would be better than no FXG support at all.
>
> As an aside, most FXG elements have SVG equivalents. In that sense FXG is
> only an XSLT transformation away from SVG (I had to do the reverse
> transformation for a project a while ago)
>
> Most modern browsers support inlining SVG with HTML5 [1] If we can skin
> HTML elements using SVG like this [2], that would be a big win for us.
> This would bring us so much closer to how we skin MXML with FXG.
>
> FYI, there is a whole bunch of inline SVG + HTML5 usage examples here [3]
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] http://caniuse.com/svg-html5
> [2]
>
> http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5/svg_html/SVG_HTML_Elements_003.html
> [3]
> http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5/svghtml_harness.htm
>
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 4:17 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/13 12:55 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less
>>>>>>
>>>>> vector
>>>>
>>>>> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
>>>>>> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support
>>>>> FXG
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> FlexJS?
>>>>>
>>>> I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence,
>>>> and I
>>>> am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that
>>>> performs
>>>> well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the
>>>> GPU
>>>> than vectors.
>>>>
>>>> It does not have to be an either-or choice. As I said, FXG supports
>>> capability of skinning with just bitmaps.
>>>
>> I guess I don't understand what you mean. I've haven't seen too many FXG
>> files, but what percentage are bitmap only? I don't think I've seen that.
>>
>
> In my opinion; using "Bitmaps" in an FXG defeats the purpose of using a
> vector format in the first place. Every FXG I've looked at inside the Flex
> Framework does not use Bitmaps; but I've only looked at a handful.
>
>
It is a common misconception that FXG is a vector-only format. FXG
supports BitmapImage and a bitmap fill for any shape or path. In any case,
most tools rasterize blends while serializing to FXG. I believe blends are
a particularly hard to faithfully serialize to FXG (or SVG)
Anyways, the point I was trying to is that FXG is a super-set of vector
based flash skinning and traditional raster-based HTML skinning. Inline
SVG with HTML5 is an option that is getting popular (give the overwhelming
cross-browser support) and we must definitely take advantage of this.
Thanks,
Om
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>.
On 3/14/2013 4:17 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 3/14/13 12:55 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less
>>> vector
>>>>> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
>>>>> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG
>>> in
>>>> FlexJS?
>>> I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence, and I
>>> am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that performs
>>> well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the GPU
>>> than vectors.
>>>
>> It does not have to be an either-or choice. As I said, FXG supports
>> capability of skinning with just bitmaps.
> I guess I don't understand what you mean. I've haven't seen too many FXG
> files, but what percentage are bitmap only? I don't think I've seen that.
In my opinion; using "Bitmaps" in an FXG defeats the purpose of using
a vector format in the first place. Every FXG I've looked at inside the
Flex Framework does not use Bitmaps; but I've only looked at a handful.
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/14/13 12:55 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less
>> vector
>>>> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
>>>> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG
>> in
>>> FlexJS?
>> I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence, and I
>> am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that performs
>> well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the GPU
>> than vectors.
>>
>
> It does not have to be an either-or choice. As I said, FXG supports
> capability of skinning with just bitmaps.
I guess I don't understand what you mean. I've haven't seen too many FXG
files, but what percentage are bitmap only? I don't think I've seen that.
> Why not work with that as the
> primary use case.
Because you said that only modern browsers support SVG skinning of HTML5
elements. I also believe in setting expectations low and exceeding them.
If you say you support FXG, you'd better be able to support the 80% case,
and that sounds like a bunch of work that I don't want to take on, but would
love to see someone else take on.
My personal goal is to find at least one large Adobe customer to adopt
FlexJS this year. This will help increase my chances of continuing to work
on Apache Flex full time. IIRC, last time we asked, many of these same
large Adobe customers are not using modern browsers.
It is either-or in the sense that I cannot do both at once so I am picking
bitmaps. But if the large Adobe customer needs vector skinning I will
certainly change course. But remember, you do not have to convince me. You
can code up the vector skinning yourself.
>>> Spark skinning paradigm is one of the best out there.
>> Aside from the fact there is a consistent way to skin components and you
>> can
>> sort of declare a skin in MXML, what else is a must-have for FlexJS?
>>
>
> Not sure if I understand your question, but here goes: I care about the
> workflow most importantly. In my mind, the idea workflow would be this:
>
> 1. Designers create visual designs of the app in tools they are
> comfortable with (Fireworks, Photoshop, etc.)
> 2. We export it to simpler assets (FXG or SVG + pngs, etc.)
> 3. We bring all the assets into the Flex project and skin the app
> 4. Users can chose Compile to SWF or Compile to HTML
>
> And the end results should be as close to each other in terms of the
> skinning of the app (in this scenario, I am less concerned about the
> business logic, etc.)
IMO, nothing you listed here requires FXG, so I would probably choose SVG.
>>
>>> Are we willing to
>>> throw it out because HTML/JS cant support it? That is not a vision of
>> Flex
>>> that existing developers would like (including me)
>>>
>>> At the very minimum, we should support the BitmapImage (and related
>>> classes) That would be better than no FXG support at all.
>> If you want to take it on, go ahead, but I'm not sure how many Adobe tools
>> will output FXG going forward. Are you willing to run an older version to
>> keep FXG around? Especially if it doesn't perform well?
>>
>
> Older version of the tool, or older version of Flex? I dont mind if I have
> to use the older version of the tool just so that I have support for FXG.
Older version of the tool.
>
> But when working with a large team with UX designers, UI designers, I want
> the ability Flex 4 skinning paradigm. In other words, to get buy in from
> large teams with established workflows, lack of FXG skinning would be a
> deal breaker.
I don't develop pretty apps for a living, so I am still trying to get what
the important things are about Flex 4 skinning. Is it just that the
designer can draw the skin in a popular drawing tool and you can plug it
into the app?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less
> vector
> >> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
> >> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
> >>
> >>
> > This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG
> in
> > FlexJS?
> I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence, and I
> am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that performs
> well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the GPU
> than vectors.
>
It does not have to be an either-or choice. As I said, FXG supports
capability of skinning with just bitmaps. Why not work with that as the
primary use case. Support for other primitives can be added incrementally.
In the end, it is up to the end user developer to use vectors vs. bitmaps
for skinning.
As Jude mentioned, there are very valid use cases for using vector based
skinning. For now, all I want to make sure is that we dont shut down this
option by choosing a skinning mechanism that excludes FXG based skinning.
> >
> > Spark skinning paradigm is one of the best out there.
> Aside from the fact there is a consistent way to skin components and you
> can
> sort of declare a skin in MXML, what else is a must-have for FlexJS?
>
Not sure if I understand your question, but here goes: I care about the
workflow most importantly. In my mind, the idea workflow would be this:
1. Designers create visual designs of the app in tools they are
comfortable with (Fireworks, Photoshop, etc.)
2. We export it to simpler assets (FXG or SVG + pngs, etc.)
3. We bring all the assets into the Flex project and skin the app
4. Users can chose Compile to SWF or Compile to HTML
And the end results should be as close to each other in terms of the
skinning of the app (in this scenario, I am less concerned about the
business logic, etc.)
>
> > Are we willing to
> > throw it out because HTML/JS cant support it? That is not a vision of
> Flex
> > that existing developers would like (including me)
> >
> > At the very minimum, we should support the BitmapImage (and related
> > classes) That would be better than no FXG support at all.
> If you want to take it on, go ahead, but I'm not sure how many Adobe tools
> will output FXG going forward. Are you willing to run an older version to
> keep FXG around? Especially if it doesn't perform well?
>
Older version of the tool, or older version of Flex? I dont mind if I have
to use the older version of the tool just so that I have support for FXG.
In terms keeping older (i.e. current) version of Flex for skinning, I think
as a developer I would choose the newer, better performing version of Flex.
But when working with a large team with UX designers, UI designers, I want
the ability Flex 4 skinning paradigm. In other words, to get buy in from
large teams with established workflows, lack of FXG skinning would be a
deal breaker.
I have worked with workflows before Flex 4 and they have consistently been
a nightmare. Most designers are not familiar with Flash Pro. And managing
assets as swf files is not fun for a developer as well.
>
> If we're working with bitmap skins, sure there will be scaling issues, but
> you will be able to use the same Adobe tools to generate these bitmaps.
>
>
> > As an aside, most FXG elements have SVG equivalents. In that sense FXG
> is
> > only an XSLT transformation away from SVG (I had to do the reverse
> > transformation for a project a while ago)
> >
> > Most modern browsers support inlining SVG with HTML5 [1] If we can skin
> > HTML elements using SVG like this [2], that would be a big win for us.
> > This would bring us so much closer to how we skin MXML with FXG.
> >
> > FYI, there is a whole bunch of inline SVG + HTML5 usage examples here [3]
> >
> If that's what you want to work on, go for it. It just isn't high on my
> personal priority list.
>
I would definitely give this a go. But I have too many Apache Flex related
things on my plate right now. I am hoping others who are reading this can
pick up this idea and run with it. But, I will get into this when I get
some time, for sure.
I am piping up now so that we dont lose ability to work with FXG in FlexJS.
Thanks,
Om
Re: FXG support in FlexJS
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less vector
>> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most
>> things get "skinned" in html/js/css
>>
>>
> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support FXG in
> FlexJS?
I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence, and I
am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that performs
well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the GPU
than vectors.
>
> Spark skinning paradigm is one of the best out there.
Aside from the fact there is a consistent way to skin components and you can
sort of declare a skin in MXML, what else is a must-have for FlexJS?
> Are we willing to
> throw it out because HTML/JS cant support it? That is not a vision of Flex
> that existing developers would like (including me)
>
> At the very minimum, we should support the BitmapImage (and related
> classes) That would be better than no FXG support at all.
If you want to take it on, go ahead, but I'm not sure how many Adobe tools
will output FXG going forward. Are you willing to run an older version to
keep FXG around? Especially if it doesn't perform well?
If we're working with bitmap skins, sure there will be scaling issues, but
you will be able to use the same Adobe tools to generate these bitmaps.
>
> As an aside, most FXG elements have SVG equivalents. In that sense FXG is
> only an XSLT transformation away from SVG (I had to do the reverse
> transformation for a project a while ago)
>
> Most modern browsers support inlining SVG with HTML5 [1] If we can skin
> HTML elements using SVG like this [2], that would be a big win for us.
> This would bring us so much closer to how we skin MXML with FXG.
>
> FYI, there is a whole bunch of inline SVG + HTML5 usage examples here [3]
>
If that's what you want to work on, go for it. It just isn't high on my
personal priority list.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui