Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Alex and all, And first of all Happy new year to all of you! Hope 2018
be a great year for all of you! :)



2017-12-30 8:50 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

>
> I agree with what you say.  What I am suggesting is making enough changes
> to the site to attract people who can help us create a "most usable
> product".  I don't think we have enough people to do that as fast as I'd
> like, so I'd rather tweak what you have to do what I see in many shopping
> centers:  a sign goes up saying that Store XX is coming soon and they are
> hiring.  Only later does that sign come down and they have a grand
> opening.  Similarly, I would like to tweak enough of what you have to say
> that we need "pioneers" and folks who like the bleeding-edge.  Even one or
> two more folks who can work well with others would be great.  I haven't
> gone through every page you've done, but on the main page, I think we only
> need to change the NPM section in some way.
>

IMHO, and talking about my experience with my own business and other stuff
I tried to build and market in my professional life:
making noise of a product that is not enough mature, use to result in a
very bad strategy that make the opposite effect and make
people run away from it instead of buy or adopting it.

So, my plan would be to focus in make Royale do what people coming would
expect to do, and maybe here is where we have some
discrepancies on what we are trying to achieve.

So don't worry now about website. It only needs some tweaks, and little
work to make it ready to publish.
We need to talk about things in Royale plan itself.



> One reason for my mockup of the website in MXML was to make sure folks
> truly understood the power of the extensible component model for Royale.
> You are still focused on traditional interactive Applications, and I agree
> that migrating Flex apps is a key market for us, but you also seemed to be
> interested in folks creating new projects, and I wanted to illustrate that
> Royale, with MXML and an extensible component model can be a benefit there
> too.  I may be crazy, but I believe that Royale can be useful in many more
> places than what folks think of as traditional Applications.  I still
> think we want to use Royale to produce our web site some day (which
> doesn't have to be now).
>

I agree. I believe Royale could have a target far more open that Flex has,
but I think we have here a warning:
people coming to Royale will not search for a tool to make website on the
first term. They will come to make
things in HTML like they produced with Flex (or Angular, or something
similar). But if they succeed, they will
want to use Royale for all other things. So focusing on something that is
still not the min focus is a mistake for me.
We should focus in make Applications as easy as we did with Flex, and that
is not happening right now.
I tried to start building an App with Royale for the theme feature and get
stuck as I started with Slider (I still couldn't
get back to it and see Peter's changes). So that's for me where we are
failing. We need to have components that work.
And right now as we start working, things are still not working. That's my
main point. If I want to start working in styling and
Theming but the basic components are not working, think in people coming to
us for the first time...Hope you could
figure their opinion about Royale although we have a great and good looking
website, or even if we can build some
basic website. They simply will gone since what they expect to get out of
the box is not working.



>
> In mocking up the site, I realized there might be content in your proposed
> site that is not ALv2 compatible, so I am suggesting changing that now,
> otherwise, it may be much more noticeable the day we want to cut over to
> the Royale version of the site, since the Royale version will probably
> have to release-able as an Apache release.


> I'm in no hurry to switch over to the Royale version of the site.  I just
> want us to take a few minutes here and there to continuously improve it.
> I still don't know where the line is between theme and content, but if the
> colors and fonts aren't part of the theme and you can tell us what you
> used, we can make sure the fonts will be ALv2 compatible and the Royale
> mockup will look a little better.
>

That's what I want to said that we have no problem at all with licenses on
the site.
If you read the ticket we created with legal they express full support of
our website in the current
state, so we can publish it and have it as long as we need. And when we
reach the point
where we can change to a Royale website we can do that (tomorrow or 5 years
in the future).
For that reason, don't worry about this and go with the things that our
users really wants for us


>
> Meanwhile, you've been saying for a few months now that you want a better
> UI set, but really, I have no idea what work needs to be done when you say
> that.  I don't doubt that there are bugs and missing features in our UI
> set, but IMO, we are not staffed with a QA team nor are we staffed to do
> things for "completeness".  We pretty much just try to do what potential
> users ask for on the mailing list.  Priority is given for folks migrating
> Flex apps.  Someone asked for modules so I put together basic modules.
> Someone asked for a TreeGrid, Peter put one together.  Harbs put something
> in about Validation.  Someone asked about I18N, I showed a way to do that.
>  If you want to migrate an app (even Tour de Flex) and can show us
> specifically what is broken, we'll try to fix it (or better yet, help you
> fix it).
>

To make theming and style working I think we need to team to make this work
you or Peter have a huge skill in architecting but don't have UX skills. In
the other
hand, I can make UX thing work, but If I find stuck with something that
doesn't work (i.e: Slider)
I can lose lots of time figuring it and fixing it. So, my best bet is: we
should join. We can
choose a component (i.e: Slider) and try to build an App Example that use
our framework changes
to introduce styling and themeing. And try to make it good as better as we
can to match
most of what Flex did in the Slider case, then go with other and so on...

In the end, a new user coming to us, should start building with Slider
directly without find anything that
make stop their work. That should be our goal, at least with 15-20
components.


>
> Of course it would be better if we could match Flex 4.6, but I'll be happy
> if we can approximate Flex 1.0.  That's where it all started.  And Flex
> 1.0 didn't have modules or I18N or a TreeGrid.  IMO, we have to be clever
> and smart about where we spend our energy and time and continuously
> improve and continuously try to recruit new people.  We can't be like a
> corporation with a fixed staff that builds something with limited public
> input and then launches it.
>

I like the approach of the strand-beads, or PAYG, but in the end that
should be something that will make
people choose as they build. The problem right now is that we want people
come to us and we have lots of pieces
but many of them doesn't work well, or directly doesn't work at all. PAYG
and compositions vs inheritance will be
a key factor in we reach something that works like Flex (or near it), We
can target Flex 1.0 since in that version
most of components worked pretty well, Button, TextInput, Slider, List,
ComboBox, CheckBox, RadioButton.
I was trapped by Flex since I started to build, and things worked out of
the box!! That's not happening with Royale right now,
and we thing that people will understand that and expect they use all that
is done so they can build on their own, but
that will never happen since people expect to adopt a framework that make
his life easier, and Royale in the current state
will make the opposite.

>
> I hope we do have different things in mind.  I know my mind does not have
> all of the answers.  We need good ideas from different people, including
> yourself.  We have this mailing list to try to get some level of mutual
> understanding, but folks are still free to scratch their own itch.  We
> don't even need to all agree, we just have to try to not get in each
> other's way, and try to help folks succeed in scratching their itch if it
> makes sense.
>

Right, we only need to reach a state where we can make enough noise to make
people come (publish website, spreading the word to the four winds,...)
but we should ensure we have something that really works or the result will
be people saying very bad things about Royale, and that's not what we want.
We want the opposite. For that reason this is very important.



>
> So, I don't know how much time you have, but in summary my requests of you
> would be (in order):
>

going through this list

>
> 1) Make some tweaks to the site to try to recruit more committers instead
> of users
>
This is difficult since what we are supporting Royale is currently what we
are and
all know what we want to get. getting more people on board will happen when
people
try us, see Royale work and want to improve it.

> 2) Tell us the colors and fonts used on the site and whether you chose
> those colors and fonts or whether they are part of the theme
>
As I said, colors and fonts are chosen by me. But that's not a problem,
even nothing about licenses in website

> 3) Replace ET-Line font in your version of the site or show us that it is
> ALv2 compatible
>
Againg, we don't have license problems as Apache legal give us green light
in the current state.

> 4) Try to build something with Royale so you can be more specific about
> what is missing/broken.  Maybe you could try to make our ASDoc example
> look and work better.  That might expose some things the UI set needs that
> is more tangible.
>
> I can go again over Royale Theme example app and try Peter's changes.
Hopefully the Slider could be working now,
but if that's ok, we should try to team to revise each component and try to
make it working out-of-the-box, in look and feel,
layout, events and so on.

If we don't get that, don't expect Royale to convince people out there, or
don't expect that our component model and features
do that, since they are great if are features build over a good working
technology. That's the main point I want to try to express here.





> I pretty much agree that we don't want to give users the impression that
> Royale is a UI set that is the equivalent of React before it is, but I
> think we need to get a release out soon and try to establish a workflow
> where we can release more often, so we can continuously improve the
> releases.  And the UI set probably won't be as ready as you would like it
> in these first releases.  I just think we need to do that in order to try
> to attract one or two more committers to help us make a better UI set, and
> attract one or two more users who are willing to ride a bumpy road with us
> so they can be a testimonial to attract other users and slowly build up
> momentum. I don't think we can make big leaps.
>

I'm with you that we need a first release as soon as we can to build over
the rest. But only to put the wagon on rails
For me that release only would be something like the actual website. Tools
to prepare Royale to get what it really needs:
A good working UI set that looks good and behaves ok so I can build a first
app without much hassle. At that point all
the tools could be in the end be use to show and spread the word to people.
And that people will find at that time that Royale
works and would eventually join to us as user or as devs to improve it.

Making things in a incorrect order, would make us have a horrible result, I
guess

Thanks

Carlos

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Olaf,

my global opinion always was that the website is only marketing thing. We
are not releasing it as a product, and that's what apache legal said, so we
should not we worried about it. We are not publishing nothing ilegal, and
with things that we can't use. All is based on WP and a theme that is
licensed (buyed) to do this.

The problem will be if we want to release some code of that website, since
is not "created" by this Royale project.

For that reason is why I'm saying that website is only a tool and not our
main focus.
You Try-it-app is a focus since is an app that covers lots of things: help
people to come to us and try us, is a living example os an App built with
royale, is marketing for us...lots of things involved.

As you said this is only a matter of opinions. I only want to express what
are zones of work where we have sufficient work invested (website) and
other zones that will be critical for many of our users that are not
working (UI Components, themes, styling,...)

That's my opinion, but only that

Thanks



2018-01-03 22:43 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net>:

>
> > Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
> > et-line font?
>
> Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
> clear [1].
> If this is an issue, maybe we could find a replacement for the icons at
> font
> awesome?
>
> >I would appreciate your
> >help instead of telling me not to work on it.
>
> I'm pretty sure nobody wants to tell anyone what he has to work on.
> But I guess everyone has its own opinion of what is more or less important
> for himself.
> And I think this is pretty ok ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
> [1] https://github.com/pprince/etlinefont-bower
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

Hi,

> Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
> clear [1].

It’s reasonably clear that it's GPL as I said the other day. See [1] (see point 6 under registration) and [2] which states "As always, these icons are completely free to use, and have been released under the GPL.”.

Remember just because something it’s free and open source doesn’t mean it’s comparable with the ALv2.[3][4] GPL is one such license. [4]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.elegantthemes.com/policy/service/
2. https://www.elegantthemes.com/blog/freebie-of-the-week/free-line-style-icons
3. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
4. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net>]

> Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source 
> et-line font? 

Maybe you can get it here but it seems to me that licensing is not really
clear [1].
If this is an issue, maybe we could find a replacement for the icons at font
awesome?

>I would appreciate your 
>help instead of telling me not to work on it. 

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to tell anyone what he has to work on.
But I guess everyone has its own opinion of what is more or less important
for himself.
And I think this is pretty ok ;-)

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] https://github.com/pprince/etlinefont-bower



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>]

Carlos,

During past 4 weeks I have sent link to nightly build of Royale at least 20
times to several people. :) Yes for me it is worth to have website right
now.

I'm not sure what do you mean that people can't use Royale at all. Yes they
can - I'm working every day on my examples using Nightly build. Is there
are bugs - of course they are, but if you follow all discussion we are
resolving it immediately.

One of the example is problems with Remove/Add items to list - Peter and me
have pushed many fixes there and now you can use those List nicely.

What will change once you release 0.9.0 ? In my opinion if it happen in the
next 2 weeks - Not too much in the code, unless during my work on examples
I will find some ugly bugs and fix them in the framework. Unless Harbs or
Yishay find some ugly bugs in their production app and fix that in them
framework. - Hey that's the thing - We need more people here which are
working full time, part time, but every day on Royale.

You were talking about styling things and having new nice looking Royale
components - Please put together UX requirements, post it on Royale Dev
list and I will start working on that ASAP.

Let's make Royale website online.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:

> Hi Piotr,
>
> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
> example:
> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> point to nothing.
>
> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from that
> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>
> Is that what we want to do?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> NOW,
> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
> > details can come later on.*
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

I changed the second to test that sag icons (multiple target and devices)
let me know if it's ok

2018-01-05 1:05 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:

> Hi Alex,
>
> this one is MIT: https://undraw.co/illustrations
>
> so I think this ok for us right?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
>> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
>>
>> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
>>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
>>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
>>> help
>>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>>>
>>> Please?
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Justin,
>>> >
>>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website,
>>> is
>>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>>> >that
>>> >we build.
>>> >
>>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
>>> code,
>>> >I
>>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part
>>> of
>>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
>>> several
>>> >months or years.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks
>>> >
>>> >Carlos
>>> >
>>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
>>> and
>>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
>>> >>web
>>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
>>> >>see
>>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Carlos Rovira
>>> >>
>>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A
>>> %2F%2Fabout.me%
>>> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
>>> 385a14b989b3208
>>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>> 650679309204496
>>> >>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Ok Alex,

I end with that change for home

best,

Carlos


2018-01-05 2:54 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> Yes, looks ok to me.
>
> Thanks for making the changes.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/4/18, 4:05 PM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >this one is MIT:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fundraw.co
> >%2Fillustrations&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b0
> >8d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650707569897950
> >0&sdata=Nr4xo4hIfMGpwSlXX8j82aWqIS8X0tGD9tAIVn4O0fM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >so I think this ok for us right?
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
> >> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
> >>
> >> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> Carlos,
> >>>
> >>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
> >>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this
> >>>topic
> >>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
> >>>help
> >>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
> >>>
> >>> Please?
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>>Rovira"
> >>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Hi Justin,
> >>> >
> >>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the
> >>>website,
> >>> is
> >>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
> >>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
> >>> >that
> >>> >we build.
> >>> >
> >>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
> >>>code,
> >>> >I
> >>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be
> >>>part of
> >>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
> >>>several
> >>> >months or years.
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks
> >>> >
> >>> >Carlos
> >>> >
> >>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
> >>>and
> >>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache
> >>>TLP
> >>> >>web
> >>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss
> >>>to
> >>> >>see
> >>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>> >>
> >>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
> >>> 3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
> >>> 385a14b989b3208
> >>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
> >>> 650679309204496
> >>> >>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08
> >>d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650707569897950
> >>0&sdata=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08d5
> >53d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636507075698979500&s
> >data=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D&reserved=0
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

Yes, looks ok to me.

Thanks for making the changes.

-Alex

On 1/4/18, 4:05 PM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>this one is MIT: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fundraw.co
>%2Fillustrations&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b0
>8d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650707569897950
>0&sdata=Nr4xo4hIfMGpwSlXX8j82aWqIS8X0tGD9tAIVn4O0fM%3D&reserved=0
>
>so I think this ok for us right?
>
>
>
>2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
>> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
>>
>> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
>>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this
>>>topic
>>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might
>>>help
>>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>>>
>>> Please?
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>>Rovira"
>>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Justin,
>>> >
>>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the
>>>website,
>>> is
>>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>>> >that
>>> >we build.
>>> >
>>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the
>>>code,
>>> >I
>>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be
>>>part of
>>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next
>>>several
>>> >months or years.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks
>>> >
>>> >Carlos
>>> >
>>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts
>>>and
>>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache
>>>TLP
>>> >>web
>>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss
>>>to
>>> >>see
>>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Carlos Rovira
>>> >>
>>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
>>> 3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
>>> 385a14b989b3208
>>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>> 650679309204496
>>> >>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08
>>d553d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650707569897950
>>0&sdata=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4a238a32d3a24acc923b08d5
>53d01f7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636507075698979500&s
>data=erKQBvdjH5PcLJXtHuaGHgVjAh3njM3gqeRw2klTK0o%3D&reserved=0

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Alex,

this one is MIT: https://undraw.co/illustrations

so I think this ok for us right?



2018-01-05 1:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
> something temporal and I want to replace for other material
>
> 2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> Carlos,
>>
>> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
>> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
>> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might help
>> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>>
>> Please?
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Justin,
>> >
>> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website,
>> is
>> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>> >that
>> >we build.
>> >
>> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code,
>> >I
>> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
>> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
>> >months or years.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Carlos
>> >
>> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
>> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
>> >>web
>> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
>> >>see
>> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carlos Rovira
>> >>
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
>> 3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299
>> 385a14b989b3208
>> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63
>> 650679309204496
>> >>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Alex,

I'll see other options. In fact that part of the home was done only as
something temporal and I want to replace for other material

2018-01-04 18:46 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> Carlos,
>
> Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
> something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
> later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might help
> me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.
>
> Please?
> -Alex
>
> On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Justin,
> >
> >as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
> >perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
> >something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
> >that
> >we build.
> >
> >In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code,
> >I
> >think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
> >the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
> >months or years.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
> >> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
> >>web
> >> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
> >>see
> >> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ccb76299385a14b989b3208
> >>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63650679309204496
> >>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

Carlos,

Even if we "can" use ET-Line on the website, can we replace it now with
something ALv2 compatible?  That way we won't have to revisit this topic
later, and I can make my mockup look more like your site, which might help
me continue to keep working on Royale full-time.

Please?
-Alex

On 1/4/18, 8:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Justin,
>
>as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
>perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
>something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology
>that
>we build.
>
>In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code,
>I
>think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
>the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
>months or years.
>
>Thanks
>
>Carlos
>
>2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
>
>>
>> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
>> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP
>>web
>> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to
>>see
>> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccb76299385a14b989b3208
>>d5538e52ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63650679309204496
>>6&sdata=BylxbJRt5WKFmo6GNzwrJMhm6YD%2BpBzVfbohnq8qzOg%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Justin,

as stated by apache legal in the ticket where we discussed the website, is
perfectly legal, since our website is only a marketing tool and no
something that users will download as part of Apache Royale technology that
we build.

In case we want to make a website build with royale and provide the code, I
think we should not use it since in that case the website will be part of
the code we deliver. But that's not the case at least in the next several
months or years.

Thanks

Carlos

2018-01-04 13:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:

>
> But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and
> under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP web
> site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to see
> if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

Hi,

> Fonts are perfectly legal! They are available in Google Fonts! :)\

Most of the fonts used (e.g. Hind Siliguri, Open Sans Condensed, Oswald, Signika and Source Sans Pro) are available from google fonts and under either the open font license or the APv2 license so there’s no issue with those.

But the ET lines font used in the site [1] is not from Google Fonts and under a GPL license (AFAICS). Can we use that in a offical Apache TLP web site? I’m not sure and IMO it would be best to ask on legal discuss to see if it’s OK OR select another icon font that is compatible with ALv2.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/plugins/movedo-extension/assets/fonts/et-line.woff

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Piotr,

Fonts are perfectly legal! They are available in Google Fonts! :)

I created a Release website thread to get it published ASAP

let's get move on



2018-01-04 12:41 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:

> If fonts have incompatible license and it looks like it has, we
> unfortunately have to replace it by some other one. If we would like to
> confirm we should raise a jira for Legal.
>
> That's my thoughts. Let's move forward, because that discussion takes too
> long and I don't see any end.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-04 12:37 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> > As for your questions:
> >
> > 1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
> > place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can
> put
> > there link to the section with Nightly Build.
> > 2) Nightly build is enough for now.
> >
> > Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Hi Piotr,
> >>
> >> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release.
> For
> >> example:
> >> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> >> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> >> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release,
> so
> >> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> >> point to nothing.
> >>
> >> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right
> now
> >> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to
> get
> >> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> >> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from
> >> that
> >> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at
> all
> >> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
> >>
> >> Is that what we want to do?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> >> NOW,
> >> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with
> NPM
> >> > details can come later on.*
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>]

If fonts have incompatible license and it looks like it has, we
unfortunately have to replace it by some other one. If we would like to
confirm we should raise a jira for Legal.

That's my thoughts. Let's move forward, because that discussion takes too
long and I don't see any end.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:37 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:

> As for your questions:
>
> 1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
> place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can put
> there link to the section with Nightly Build.
> 2) Nightly build is enough for now.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
>> example:
>> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
>> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
>> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
>> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
>> point to nothing.
>>
>> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
>> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
>> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
>> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from
>> that
>> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
>> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>>
>> Is that what we want to do?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >
>> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
>> NOW,
>> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
>> > details can come later on.*
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>]

As for your questions:

1) Yes we should do as Alex suggested. We should remove, or put in that
place information that it will be filled once we release things. We can put
there link to the section with Nightly Build.
2) Nightly build is enough for now.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-04 12:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:

> Hi Piotr,
>
> site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
> example:
> * Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
> version?, but to do this, first we need to release
> * I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
> people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
> point to nothing.
>
> We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
> if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
> with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
> now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from that
> since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
> (at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)
>
> Is that what we want to do?
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published
> NOW,
> > without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
> > details can come later on.*
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Piotr,

site has the right info right now. But there's key points to release. For
example:
* Should we remove NPM zones as Alex suggest? or wait for Om to end NPM
version?, but to do this, first we need to release
* I think many people here said that we need at least a first release, so
people coming should not find lost in a website that in the end doesn't
point to nothing.

We can cut right now a static version of the site and publish it right now
if we want...for me that's not the problem at all but what we want to get
with that. As I said pointing people to us and put focus in Royale right
now can be the worst movement we can do and maybe hard to recover from that
since people will come and see that in the end we can't use Royale at all
(at least he is with all the knowledge a few of us has...)

Is that what we want to do?



2018-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:

>
> *I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published NOW,
> without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
> details can come later on.*
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>]

Carlos,

2018-01-03 15:50 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>:

> I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
> website done with royale is sufficient.
>
> @Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
> icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
> nothing that you should waste your valuable time.
>



> As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
> push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.
>
>
*I think most of the PMCs are saying that website should be published NOW,
without waiting for the release. Am I miss something ? Updates with NPM
details can come later on.*



> Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
> What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
> Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
> Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
> anytime anywhere.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I agree.
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
> > really
> > > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> > > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2,
> etc.
> > >
> > > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
> > stuff
> > > and the developer experience but I think we should address those things
> > to
> > > the first major release 1.0.0.
> > > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with
> exploring
> > > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> > > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
> > development...
> > > but also ready for building apps.
> > >
> > > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> > > version is released.
> > > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
> > posts
> > > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> > > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
> > don't
> > > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to
> find a
> > > appropriate Royale version.
> > >
> > > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app
> using
> > > Royale.
> > > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a
> nice
> > > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> > > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is
> implemented
> > by
> > > using Royale at least.
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents,
> > > Olaf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

2018-01-03 21:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

>
> Great, so please help us create those parts by telling more about the
> fonts and colors you are using.
>

Hi Alex,

inside the WP admin interface, in theme options you have a font section
where all of you can see what fonts are used for each part (Appearance >
Theme Options > Typography Options )

The two fonts used most of the time are: Hind Siliguri (normal texts) and
Signika (titles, headings, menu,...)


> In order for us to make the other parts look consistent we need to know
> the fonts being used.  The ruler-and-pencil icon appears to be using font
> family "et-line".  Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
> et-line font?
>

http://rhythm.nikadevs.com/content/icons-et-line


>
> IMO, we will get to the first release faster and better with a better site
> that attracts more developers instead of users.
>

IMHO, I think that should not happen, since there's so much involved
but I could be wrong at all, and is only my point of view. I think people
expect
something that looks promising and from there they get passion and
involvement.
But it's difficult to get to that point right now for
non-flex-old-developers.
Hope I'm wrong with this..


> I am not an official spokesperson for Adobe or its business strategies,
> but from my perspective, Adobe is not very interested in traditional web
> applications so a good looking simple example probably isn't going to
> convince them to keep paying me and Peter.  Adobe is way more interested
> in creatives, and in helping these folks create web content and mobile
> applications.  Otherwise, I would think Adobe would be pushing some sort
> of migration solution for its Flex customers.  Also, Adobe has to produce
> a ton of web content itself to market and support its customers.
>

So...we can conclude that Adobe will be happy to pay you both if we get to
something
that delivers good looking graphics...and that's why I'm asking you both to
team
to make UI components more good looking.


>
> That is one reason I put some time into mocking up the Royale website in
> Royale.  I think what might be more interesting to Adobe is showing that
> Royale can help these creatives create web content or help Adobe create
> its web content.  I would like to not spend too much more time on my
> Royale Website POC, so if you can help me bring it closer to looking like
> your WP version of the site by telling me the fonts and colors, then not
> only will we be able to make the other parts of our site like the TryItNow
> and ASDoc look more consistent, but I will have a better story if I need
> to try to convince Adobe that Royale is worth the money they are spending
> on it.  Right now, the POC doesn't look close enough, so it is unlikely to
> be convincing.
>

Hi, I understand your point, but the main problem for me here is that I
think we are missing
the main goal, or maybe the main goal has changed. For me Royale was about
to make
something with the essence of Flex that help to build Applications easily
like we did with Flex in the past.
If the main focus is to make good looking websites, I think that's not the
reason I'm here, since for that
task there's lots of options out there to work HTML sites quick and easy. I
think we don't give value to our
users with that main goal. But again, if that's the global feeling, I'm not
the person how will stop that, but
simply my focus will change since is not interesting to me.


>
> Of course, I could be wrong, but I am always looking for other ways to
> justify my full-time assignment to Apache, and I would appreciate your
> help instead of telling me not to work on it.
>

Alex, we all know that we can do what we want as that's the Apache moto. I
only want to express why
I'm surprised of the paths things are going since I thought our main focus
was to have:

* A good set of tools and languages to make Applications (MXML, AS3,
compilers...)
* A good set of UI Components and controls
* A fast methodology of development (based on most of the Flex knowledge we
get from the past years but with great new
points like Strands/beads, PAYG, and more)

For me to do a website is something collateral that is great in the end, as
a "result", but if I try to put some components
to work and that components still not work or are looking very raw, I think
the final user will not want to use Royale.

Hope you all see this as a constructive critic and to help us to define the
way better. I'm always a democratic person and if
all you think UI Components are less prior that get a website, I'll assume
that. But I think is great to know how global interest are right now
for all people here.

Thanks!



>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> >
> >2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
> >> really
> >> > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> >> > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2,
> >>etc.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
> >> stuff
> >> > and the developer experience but I think we should address those
> >>things
> >> to
> >> > the first major release 1.0.0.
> >> > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with
> >>exploring
> >> > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> >> > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
> >> development...
> >> > but also ready for building apps.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> >> > version is released.
> >> > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
> >> posts
> >> > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> >> > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
> >> don't
> >> > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to
> >>find a
> >> > appropriate Royale version.
> >> >
> >> > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app
> >>using
> >> > Royale.
> >> > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a
> >>nice
> >> > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> >> > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is
> >>implemented
> >> by
> >> > using Royale at least.
> >> >
> >> > Just my 2 cents,
> >> > Olaf
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sent from:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
> >>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> 40adobe.com
> >>%7Cd8b185e854b74ee1fdd908d552b9681b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C
> >>0%7C0%7C636505878630565332&sdata=v11mPW8we9iRyky%
> 2BgOHm5MuO9gFPZhLltmrpKx
> >>G5TR0%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cd8b185e854b74ee1fdd908d5
> >52b9681b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636505878630565332&s
> >data=m7q6OxWrgWTx9USLwzqVeQotZ%2Fvgm2eB7Ys0XpkxaSU%3D&reserved=0
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

On 1/3/18, 6:50 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
>website done with royale is sufficient.

Great, so please help us create those parts by telling more about the
fonts and colors you are using.
>
>@Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
>icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
>nothing that you should waste your valuable time.

In order for us to make the other parts look consistent we need to know
the fonts being used.  The ruler-and-pencil icon appears to be using font
family "et-line".  Can you tell me where I can get a free and open source
et-line font?
>
>As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
>push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.

IMO, we will get to the first release faster and better with a better site
that attracts more developers instead of users.
>
>Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
>What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
>Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
>Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
>anytime anywhere.

I am not an official spokesperson for Adobe or its business strategies,
but from my perspective, Adobe is not very interested in traditional web
applications so a good looking simple example probably isn't going to
convince them to keep paying me and Peter.  Adobe is way more interested
in creatives, and in helping these folks create web content and mobile
applications.  Otherwise, I would think Adobe would be pushing some sort
of migration solution for its Flex customers.  Also, Adobe has to produce
a ton of web content itself to market and support its customers.

That is one reason I put some time into mocking up the Royale website in
Royale.  I think what might be more interesting to Adobe is showing that
Royale can help these creatives create web content or help Adobe create
its web content.  I would like to not spend too much more time on my
Royale Website POC, so if you can help me bring it closer to looking like
your WP version of the site by telling me the fonts and colors, then not
only will we be able to make the other parts of our site like the TryItNow
and ASDoc look more consistent, but I will have a better story if I need
to try to convince Adobe that Royale is worth the money they are spending
on it.  Right now, the POC doesn't look close enough, so it is unlikely to
be convincing.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I am always looking for other ways to
justify my full-time assignment to Apache, and I would appreciate your
help instead of telling me not to work on it.

Thanks,
-Alex
>
>2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
>> really
>> > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
>> > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2,
>>etc.
>> >
>> > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
>> stuff
>> > and the developer experience but I think we should address those
>>things
>> to
>> > the first major release 1.0.0.
>> > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with
>>exploring
>> > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
>> > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
>> development...
>> > but also ready for building apps.
>> >
>> > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
>> > version is released.
>> > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
>> posts
>> > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
>> > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
>> don't
>> > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to
>>find a
>> > appropriate Royale version.
>> >
>> > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app
>>using
>> > Royale.
>> > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a
>>nice
>> > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
>> > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is
>>implemented
>> by
>> > using Royale at least.
>> >
>> > Just my 2 cents,
>> > Olaf
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from: 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>>%7Cd8b185e854b74ee1fdd908d552b9681b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C
>>0%7C0%7C636505878630565332&sdata=v11mPW8we9iRyky%2BgOHm5MuO9gFPZhLltmrpKx
>>G5TR0%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd8b185e854b74ee1fdd908d5
>52b9681b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636505878630565332&s
>data=m7q6OxWrgWTx9USLwzqVeQotZ%2Fvgm2eB7Ys0XpkxaSU%3D&reserved=0

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

I agree as well with what Olaf said. For me having parts of the Royale
website done with royale is sufficient.

@Alex, the icons in website are as well free and open source from various
icons sets out there like font awesome and line icons and others. Again,
nothing that you should waste your valuable time.

As Josh, with VSCode, I'm as well on hold waiting for the first release to
push latest touches on website and we'll have that as well.

Regarding, Adobe, I think I express it badly. I didn't want to say that.
What I want to say is that if you need to "sell" the value of your work to
Adobe you can do it with a good looking simple example so they pay you and
Peter fro your work here. I know, and don't expect Adobe sell Royale
anytime anywhere.

Carlos



2018-01-03 13:07 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>:

> I agree.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be
> really
> > helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> > After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc.
> >
> > I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing
> stuff
> > and the developer experience but I think we should address those things
> to
> > the first major release 1.0.0.
> > I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with exploring
> > Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> > anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under
> development...
> > but also ready for building apps.
> >
> > AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> > version is released.
> > And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those
> posts
> > are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> > I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale
> don't
> > want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to find a
> > appropriate Royale version.
> >
> > I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app using
> > Royale.
> > I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a nice
> > look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> > successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is implemented
> by
> > using Royale at least.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Gabe Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>]

I agree.

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 6:57 AM, Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be really
> helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
> After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc.
> 
> I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing stuff
> and the developer experience but I think we should address those things to
> the first major release 1.0.0.
> I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with exploring
> Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
> anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under development...
> but also ready for building apps.
> 
> AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
> version is released.
> And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those posts
> are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
> I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale don't
> want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to find a
> appropriate Royale version.
> 
> I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app using
> Royale.
> I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a nice
> look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
> successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is implemented by
> using Royale at least.
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> Olaf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Olaf Krueger <ma...@olafkrueger.net>]

Hi,
I would just like to mention that from my point of view it I would be really
helpful to have a first Royale release soon, e.g. 0.9.0.
After that, Royale could evolve by minor versions like 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc.

I agree with Carlos that there is still a way to go regarding missing stuff
and the developer experience but I think we should address those things to
the first major release 1.0.0.
I also agree that there is a danger that folks who starts with exploring
Royale will be dissapointed and leave. To avoid this we should mention
anywhere and as often as possible that Royale is still under development...
but also ready for building apps.

AFAIK Josh is on hold with his VSCode extension until the first Royale
version is released.
And maybe other users from the Flex lists who doesn't follow all those posts
are lost cause Royale acts a bit in the dark at the moment.
I could imagine that users who would like to get in touch with Royale don't
want to start with the FlexJS version but also don't know where to find a
appropriate Royale version.

I am trying to work as often as possible on our little TryItNow app using
Royale.
I started from scratch and I really hope to provide this app with a nice
look and feel which follows Carlos website design. If this will be
successful we'll have one part of the Royale website that is implemented by
using Royale at least.

Just my 2 cents,
Olaf








--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

Hi -

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 9:48 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> For Adobe, to sell Royale, I think will be easy if we build a basic app
> that looks pretty good. Adobe likes things done simple with good graphics.

Royale is not an Adobe project. At Apache we are about software for the public good with absolutely NO vendor bias.

Please stop with Adobe sells and any other customer business. If Royale does well then we will have users. These users may be commercial companies. (We don’t care)

Lots of people like Google agree that things should be simple with good graphics ….

Regards,
Dave

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>]

I really like doing things and moving forward.

I see only one problem in case of website which has been raised - License.
If you guys figure out whether problematic stuff is ok, we should export
and public that website now. There is no point to wait, building new one
using Royale can always happen later.

I think in Royale you can now build a lot of things, even with that Basic
stuff. It may take a bit more time, but definitely we will be able to have
nice looking, readable and productive for extend that code.

I think we need users who will work on Royale if not for a full time at
least half time. This should be our goal and I believe website is one of
the point to make it happen.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-02 19:34 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

>
>
> On 1/2/18, 9:48 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >Please explain what is ET-Line, I don't know what you refer with that.
> >The fonts used are from Google Fonts, so I think there's no problem at all
> >since is what 99% of the sites use today.
> >Colors as well are impossible to be keep by a license, and I used what I
> >thought was right to me. So that's my work.
>
> When I go to [1], where it says "Enterprise Class Level" there is an icon
> with a rule and a pencil.  What icons or icon font is that?
>
> [1] http://royale.codeoscopic.com
> >
> >In the end, think that a site "face" use to fresh for some time (maybe a
> >couple of years?), so the other point to not worry about this is
> >that if we get the rest done a people come, we'll need to go back a make a
> >new "fresh" version of the site that will rework all that is done.
> >And mostly maybe only a few part will remain beyond content (maybe 10%?).
> >
> >So if we use the current site, we hace 1-2 year to focus on what's
> >important and then with a robust tech, come back to the site and rework it
> >in MXML-AS3
> >
> >About incremental. I'm with you, but with a minimum state. I think we
> >still
> >don't have the minimum to make incremental work. As I said you, people
> >coming to us right now will find they can't make an raw app with what we
> >have and so, they will be unhappy users telling other users that Royale
> >doesn't work or something like that. That's my fear right now.
>
> Carlos, Adobe may not pay me and/or Peter to work on Royale full time for
> another 1 or 2 years.  I don't see how we will get to any minimum state by
> not recruiting more folks like Harbs, Yishay, Josh, and Piotr.  Folks who
> understand how to work on the bleeding-edge of development.  We can only
> do little bits of improvement at a time.  There is no team even 10% of the
> size of the Adobe Flex team to get a ton of code done and then release it.
>  If you think otherwise, then prove it to me by getting people to get a
> ton of code done.
> >
> >For Adobe, to sell Royale, I think will be easy if we build a basic app
> >that looks pretty good. Adobe likes things done simple with good graphics.
> >And that's what many of us wants since right now Royale produces ugly
> >interfaces. Don't you think that's a great goal for many of us?
>
> I think you are still in the Adobe Flex mindset of traditional product
> development and marketing.  If so, that needs to change.  Adobe will not
> sell Royale.  Royale is free open source.  Thus Adobe is generously
> donating Peter and me to Royale.  They could change their minds at any
> time.  It is a donation and not a long-term strategic investment and
> probably never will be.  My goal is to show Adobe that they can save money
> (not make money) and have happier customers by using Royale to produce
> their web applications and mobile applications.  And maybe save money
> producing web content as well, which is why I want to show that we can
> produce the Royale site in Royale.  That way they may continue to donate
> Peter and I to Royale.
>
> If you think what Royale produces today is ugly, then help us make it
> better, by doing the work yourself, or tweaking our site to try to attract
> a few more folks like our current committers, and/or producing a sample
> app and telling us what you don't like about it.  Our current site at
> royale.apache.org is not helping to attract folks, IMO.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

On 1/2/18, 9:48 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>Please explain what is ET-Line, I don't know what you refer with that.
>The fonts used are from Google Fonts, so I think there's no problem at all
>since is what 99% of the sites use today.
>Colors as well are impossible to be keep by a license, and I used what I
>thought was right to me. So that's my work.

When I go to [1], where it says "Enterprise Class Level" there is an icon
with a rule and a pencil.  What icons or icon font is that?

[1] http://royale.codeoscopic.com
>
>In the end, think that a site "face" use to fresh for some time (maybe a
>couple of years?), so the other point to not worry about this is
>that if we get the rest done a people come, we'll need to go back a make a
>new "fresh" version of the site that will rework all that is done.
>And mostly maybe only a few part will remain beyond content (maybe 10%?).
>
>So if we use the current site, we hace 1-2 year to focus on what's
>important and then with a robust tech, come back to the site and rework it
>in MXML-AS3
>
>About incremental. I'm with you, but with a minimum state. I think we
>still
>don't have the minimum to make incremental work. As I said you, people
>coming to us right now will find they can't make an raw app with what we
>have and so, they will be unhappy users telling other users that Royale
>doesn't work or something like that. That's my fear right now.

Carlos, Adobe may not pay me and/or Peter to work on Royale full time for
another 1 or 2 years.  I don't see how we will get to any minimum state by
not recruiting more folks like Harbs, Yishay, Josh, and Piotr.  Folks who
understand how to work on the bleeding-edge of development.  We can only
do little bits of improvement at a time.  There is no team even 10% of the
size of the Adobe Flex team to get a ton of code done and then release it.
 If you think otherwise, then prove it to me by getting people to get a
ton of code done.
>
>For Adobe, to sell Royale, I think will be easy if we build a basic app
>that looks pretty good. Adobe likes things done simple with good graphics.
>And that's what many of us wants since right now Royale produces ugly
>interfaces. Don't you think that's a great goal for many of us?

I think you are still in the Adobe Flex mindset of traditional product
development and marketing.  If so, that needs to change.  Adobe will not
sell Royale.  Royale is free open source.  Thus Adobe is generously
donating Peter and me to Royale.  They could change their minds at any
time.  It is a donation and not a long-term strategic investment and
probably never will be.  My goal is to show Adobe that they can save money
(not make money) and have happier customers by using Royale to produce
their web applications and mobile applications.  And maybe save money
producing web content as well, which is why I want to show that we can
produce the Royale site in Royale.  That way they may continue to donate
Peter and I to Royale.

If you think what Royale produces today is ugly, then help us make it
better, by doing the work yourself, or tweaking our site to try to attract
a few more folks like our current committers, and/or producing a sample
app and telling us what you don't like about it.  Our current site at
royale.apache.org is not helping to attract folks, IMO.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

[Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>]

Hi Alex,

Please explain what is ET-Line, I don't know what you refer with that.
The fonts used are from Google Fonts, so I think there's no problem at all
since is what 99% of the sites use today.
Colors as well are impossible to be keep by a license, and I used what I
thought was right to me. So that's my work.

In the end, think that a site "face" use to fresh for some time (maybe a
couple of years?), so the other point to not worry about this is
that if we get the rest done a people come, we'll need to go back a make a
new "fresh" version of the site that will rework all that is done.
And mostly maybe only a few part will remain beyond content (maybe 10%?).

So if we use the current site, we hace 1-2 year to focus on what's
important and then with a robust tech, come back to the site and rework it
in MXML-AS3

About incremental. I'm with you, but with a minimum state. I think we still
don't have the minimum to make incremental work. As I said you, people
coming to us right now will find they can't make an raw app with what we
have and so, they will be unhappy users telling other users that Royale
doesn't work or something like that. That's my fear right now.

For Adobe, to sell Royale, I think will be easy if we build a basic app
that looks pretty good. Adobe likes things done simple with good graphics.
And that's what many of us wants since right now Royale produces ugly
interfaces. Don't you think that's a great goal for many of us?

Thanks

Carlos



2018-01-02 18:31 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> Yes, Happy New Year to one and all.
>
> I couldn't figure out what to snip, so I'm top-posting...
>
> I've been buried with compiler and build process work, so it has been
> months since I actually tried to build something from the very beginning.
> Maybe we can get some other folks to try to build something from scratch
> as well or build out examples in a "Tour de Royale" and see if there are
> issues.  Peter said he looked over the examples recently and they seemed
> fine.  Once I get through the build scripting I will take a look.
>
> However, I still believe the Apache Way is incremental improvement.
> Having a big public launch will be great some day, but I'm not sure how
> soon that day is, and until we get there, we need to make releases with
> incremental gains and try to target folks who are willing to be pioneers
> and help us build out the thing we have a big public launch about someday.
>  Also, we will have limited budget for a big public launch.  I keep
> thinking that we need to grow virally like any other social media
> phenomenon.  And that means making one customer happy, then two customers,
> then four, etc.  And testimonials will be important to have when folks
> come to investigate Royale, so it doesn't make sense to me to wait until
> some big launch day.
>
> I agree that most folks will not come to Royale at first for an extensible
> component model for their website, but IMO, the sooner we can show that
> our all of our web presence was built in Royale, the better off we are,
> and also, I am always searching for a "hook" that will continue to
> convince Adobe to keep paying me to work on Royale, so I am trying to find
> new ways to use Royale in hopes that one of them will get people
> interested in Royale at Adobe.  My main focus will still be on migrating
> people's Flex apps, but it might be helpful to me to have made a certain
> amount of progress on some other approaches that might be important to the
> folks who pay me.
>
> I understand that we CAN publish your version of the site as the Royale
> website, but AIUI, that is mainly because the ASF does not "release" web
> sites.  Also, I'm not sure they did a thorough investigation of the
> licensing of all of the fonts used because it doesn't truly matter for an
> ASF project's web site.  But if we want to cut over to a Royale version of
> the web site some day, I would want the source to be ALv2 compatible, and
> I don't see how ET-Line is ALv2 compatible.  So, please explain how
> ET-Line is ALv2 compatible or please try to find a way to replace its use
> in your version of the site so that portion of the site won't have to
> change some day when we want to cut over to the Royale version.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/1/18, 7:44 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex and all, And first of all Happy new year to all of you! Hope 2018
> >be a great year for all of you! :)
> >
> >
> >
> >2017-12-30 8:50 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >
> >>
> >> I agree with what you say.  What I am suggesting is making enough
> >>changes
> >> to the site to attract people who can help us create a "most usable
> >> product".  I don't think we have enough people to do that as fast as I'd
> >> like, so I'd rather tweak what you have to do what I see in many
> >>shopping
> >> centers:  a sign goes up saying that Store XX is coming soon and they
> >>are
> >> hiring.  Only later does that sign come down and they have a grand
> >> opening.  Similarly, I would like to tweak enough of what you have to
> >>say
> >> that we need "pioneers" and folks who like the bleeding-edge.  Even one
> >>or
> >> two more folks who can work well with others would be great.  I haven't
> >> gone through every page you've done, but on the main page, I think we
> >>only
> >> need to change the NPM section in some way.
> >>
> >
> >IMHO, and talking about my experience with my own business and other stuff
> >I tried to build and market in my professional life:
> >making noise of a product that is not enough mature, use to result in a
> >very bad strategy that make the opposite effect and make
> >people run away from it instead of buy or adopting it.
> >
> >So, my plan would be to focus in make Royale do what people coming would
> >expect to do, and maybe here is where we have some
> >discrepancies on what we are trying to achieve.
> >
> >So don't worry now about website. It only needs some tweaks, and little
> >work to make it ready to publish.
> >We need to talk about things in Royale plan itself.
> >
> >
> >
> >> One reason for my mockup of the website in MXML was to make sure folks
> >> truly understood the power of the extensible component model for Royale.
> >> You are still focused on traditional interactive Applications, and I
> >>agree
> >> that migrating Flex apps is a key market for us, but you also seemed to
> >>be
> >> interested in folks creating new projects, and I wanted to illustrate
> >>that
> >> Royale, with MXML and an extensible component model can be a benefit
> >>there
> >> too.  I may be crazy, but I believe that Royale can be useful in many
> >>more
> >> places than what folks think of as traditional Applications.  I still
> >> think we want to use Royale to produce our web site some day (which
> >> doesn't have to be now).
> >>
> >
> >I agree. I believe Royale could have a target far more open that Flex has,
> >but I think we have here a warning:
> >people coming to Royale will not search for a tool to make website on the
> >first term. They will come to make
> >things in HTML like they produced with Flex (or Angular, or something
> >similar). But if they succeed, they will
> >want to use Royale for all other things. So focusing on something that is
> >still not the min focus is a mistake for me.
> >We should focus in make Applications as easy as we did with Flex, and that
> >is not happening right now.
> >I tried to start building an App with Royale for the theme feature and get
> >stuck as I started with Slider (I still couldn't
> >get back to it and see Peter's changes). So that's for me where we are
> >failing. We need to have components that work.
> >And right now as we start working, things are still not working. That's my
> >main point. If I want to start working in styling and
> >Theming but the basic components are not working, think in people coming
> >to
> >us for the first time...Hope you could
> >figure their opinion about Royale although we have a great and good
> >looking
> >website, or even if we can build some
> >basic website. They simply will gone since what they expect to get out of
> >the box is not working.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> In mocking up the site, I realized there might be content in your
> >>proposed
> >> site that is not ALv2 compatible, so I am suggesting changing that now,
> >> otherwise, it may be much more noticeable the day we want to cut over to
> >> the Royale version of the site, since the Royale version will probably
> >> have to release-able as an Apache release.
> >
> >
> >> I'm in no hurry to switch over to the Royale version of the site.  I
> >>just
> >> want us to take a few minutes here and there to continuously improve it.
> >> I still don't know where the line is between theme and content, but if
> >>the
> >> colors and fonts aren't part of the theme and you can tell us what you
> >> used, we can make sure the fonts will be ALv2 compatible and the Royale
> >> mockup will look a little better.
> >>
> >
> >That's what I want to said that we have no problem at all with licenses on
> >the site.
> >If you read the ticket we created with legal they express full support of
> >our website in the current
> >state, so we can publish it and have it as long as we need. And when we
> >reach the point
> >where we can change to a Royale website we can do that (tomorrow or 5
> >years
> >in the future).
> >For that reason, don't worry about this and go with the things that our
> >users really wants for us
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, you've been saying for a few months now that you want a
> >>better
> >> UI set, but really, I have no idea what work needs to be done when you
> >>say
> >> that.  I don't doubt that there are bugs and missing features in our UI
> >> set, but IMO, we are not staffed with a QA team nor are we staffed to do
> >> things for "completeness".  We pretty much just try to do what potential
> >> users ask for on the mailing list.  Priority is given for folks
> >>migrating
> >> Flex apps.  Someone asked for modules so I put together basic modules.
> >> Someone asked for a TreeGrid, Peter put one together.  Harbs put
> >>something
> >> in about Validation.  Someone asked about I18N, I showed a way to do
> >>that.
> >>  If you want to migrate an app (even Tour de Flex) and can show us
> >> specifically what is broken, we'll try to fix it (or better yet, help
> >>you
> >> fix it).
> >>
> >
> >To make theming and style working I think we need to team to make this
> >work
> >you or Peter have a huge skill in architecting but don't have UX skills.
> >In
> >the other
> >hand, I can make UX thing work, but If I find stuck with something that
> >doesn't work (i.e: Slider)
> >I can lose lots of time figuring it and fixing it. So, my best bet is: we
> >should join. We can
> >choose a component (i.e: Slider) and try to build an App Example that use
> >our framework changes
> >to introduce styling and themeing. And try to make it good as better as we
> >can to match
> >most of what Flex did in the Slider case, then go with other and so on...
> >
> >In the end, a new user coming to us, should start building with Slider
> >directly without find anything that
> >make stop their work. That should be our goal, at least with 15-20
> >components.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Of course it would be better if we could match Flex 4.6, but I'll be
> >>happy
> >> if we can approximate Flex 1.0.  That's where it all started.  And Flex
> >> 1.0 didn't have modules or I18N or a TreeGrid.  IMO, we have to be
> >>clever
> >> and smart about where we spend our energy and time and continuously
> >> improve and continuously try to recruit new people.  We can't be like a
> >> corporation with a fixed staff that builds something with limited public
> >> input and then launches it.
> >>
> >
> >I like the approach of the strand-beads, or PAYG, but in the end that
> >should be something that will make
> >people choose as they build. The problem right now is that we want people
> >come to us and we have lots of pieces
> >but many of them doesn't work well, or directly doesn't work at all. PAYG
> >and compositions vs inheritance will be
> >a key factor in we reach something that works like Flex (or near it), We
> >can target Flex 1.0 since in that version
> >most of components worked pretty well, Button, TextInput, Slider, List,
> >ComboBox, CheckBox, RadioButton.
> >I was trapped by Flex since I started to build, and things worked out of
> >the box!! That's not happening with Royale right now,
> >and we thing that people will understand that and expect they use all that
> >is done so they can build on their own, but
> >that will never happen since people expect to adopt a framework that make
> >his life easier, and Royale in the current state
> >will make the opposite.
> >
> >>
> >> I hope we do have different things in mind.  I know my mind does not
> >>have
> >> all of the answers.  We need good ideas from different people, including
> >> yourself.  We have this mailing list to try to get some level of mutual
> >> understanding, but folks are still free to scratch their own itch.  We
> >> don't even need to all agree, we just have to try to not get in each
> >> other's way, and try to help folks succeed in scratching their itch if
> >>it
> >> makes sense.
> >>
> >
> >Right, we only need to reach a state where we can make enough noise to
> >make
> >people come (publish website, spreading the word to the four winds,...)
> >but we should ensure we have something that really works or the result
> >will
> >be people saying very bad things about Royale, and that's not what we
> >want.
> >We want the opposite. For that reason this is very important.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So, I don't know how much time you have, but in summary my requests of
> >>you
> >> would be (in order):
> >>
> >
> >going through this list
> >
> >>
> >> 1) Make some tweaks to the site to try to recruit more committers
> >>instead
> >> of users
> >>
> >This is difficult since what we are supporting Royale is currently what we
> >are and
> >all know what we want to get. getting more people on board will happen
> >when
> >people
> >try us, see Royale work and want to improve it.
> >
> >> 2) Tell us the colors and fonts used on the site and whether you chose
> >> those colors and fonts or whether they are part of the theme
> >>
> >As I said, colors and fonts are chosen by me. But that's not a problem,
> >even nothing about licenses in website
> >
> >> 3) Replace ET-Line font in your version of the site or show us that it
> >>is
> >> ALv2 compatible
> >>
> >Againg, we don't have license problems as Apache legal give us green light
> >in the current state.
> >
> >> 4) Try to build something with Royale so you can be more specific about
> >> what is missing/broken.  Maybe you could try to make our ASDoc example
> >> look and work better.  That might expose some things the UI set needs
> >>that
> >> is more tangible.
> >>
> >> I can go again over Royale Theme example app and try Peter's changes.
> >Hopefully the Slider could be working now,
> >but if that's ok, we should try to team to revise each component and try
> >to
> >make it working out-of-the-box, in look and feel,
> >layout, events and so on.
> >
> >If we don't get that, don't expect Royale to convince people out there, or
> >don't expect that our component model and features
> >do that, since they are great if are features build over a good working
> >technology. That's the main point I want to try to express here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> I pretty much agree that we don't want to give users the impression that
> >> Royale is a UI set that is the equivalent of React before it is, but I
> >> think we need to get a release out soon and try to establish a workflow
> >> where we can release more often, so we can continuously improve the
> >> releases.  And the UI set probably won't be as ready as you would like
> >>it
> >> in these first releases.  I just think we need to do that in order to
> >>try
> >> to attract one or two more committers to help us make a better UI set,
> >>and
> >> attract one or two more users who are willing to ride a bumpy road with
> >>us
> >> so they can be a testimonial to attract other users and slowly build up
> >> momentum. I don't think we can make big leaps.
> >>
> >
> >I'm with you that we need a first release as soon as we can to build over
> >the rest. But only to put the wagon on rails
> >For me that release only would be something like the actual website. Tools
> >to prepare Royale to get what it really needs:
> >A good working UI set that looks good and behaves ok so I can build a
> >first
> >app without much hassle. At that point all
> >the tools could be in the end be use to show and spread the word to
> >people.
> >And that people will find at that time that Royale
> >works and would eventually join to us as user or as devs to improve it.
> >
> >Making things in a incorrect order, would make us have a horrible result,
> >I
> >guess
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Carlos
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale and Websites (was Re: About website actual work in progress)

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

Yes, Happy New Year to one and all.

I couldn't figure out what to snip, so I'm top-posting...

I've been buried with compiler and build process work, so it has been
months since I actually tried to build something from the very beginning.
Maybe we can get some other folks to try to build something from scratch
as well or build out examples in a "Tour de Royale" and see if there are
issues.  Peter said he looked over the examples recently and they seemed
fine.  Once I get through the build scripting I will take a look.

However, I still believe the Apache Way is incremental improvement.
Having a big public launch will be great some day, but I'm not sure how
soon that day is, and until we get there, we need to make releases with
incremental gains and try to target folks who are willing to be pioneers
and help us build out the thing we have a big public launch about someday.
 Also, we will have limited budget for a big public launch.  I keep
thinking that we need to grow virally like any other social media
phenomenon.  And that means making one customer happy, then two customers,
then four, etc.  And testimonials will be important to have when folks
come to investigate Royale, so it doesn't make sense to me to wait until
some big launch day.

I agree that most folks will not come to Royale at first for an extensible
component model for their website, but IMO, the sooner we can show that
our all of our web presence was built in Royale, the better off we are,
and also, I am always searching for a "hook" that will continue to
convince Adobe to keep paying me to work on Royale, so I am trying to find
new ways to use Royale in hopes that one of them will get people
interested in Royale at Adobe.  My main focus will still be on migrating
people's Flex apps, but it might be helpful to me to have made a certain
amount of progress on some other approaches that might be important to the
folks who pay me.

I understand that we CAN publish your version of the site as the Royale
website, but AIUI, that is mainly because the ASF does not "release" web
sites.  Also, I'm not sure they did a thorough investigation of the
licensing of all of the fonts used because it doesn't truly matter for an
ASF project's web site.  But if we want to cut over to a Royale version of
the web site some day, I would want the source to be ALv2 compatible, and
I don't see how ET-Line is ALv2 compatible.  So, please explain how
ET-Line is ALv2 compatible or please try to find a way to replace its use
in your version of the site so that portion of the site won't have to
change some day when we want to cut over to the Royale version.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/1/18, 7:44 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Alex and all, And first of all Happy new year to all of you! Hope 2018
>be a great year for all of you! :)
>
>
>
>2017-12-30 8:50 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>>
>> I agree with what you say.  What I am suggesting is making enough
>>changes
>> to the site to attract people who can help us create a "most usable
>> product".  I don't think we have enough people to do that as fast as I'd
>> like, so I'd rather tweak what you have to do what I see in many
>>shopping
>> centers:  a sign goes up saying that Store XX is coming soon and they
>>are
>> hiring.  Only later does that sign come down and they have a grand
>> opening.  Similarly, I would like to tweak enough of what you have to
>>say
>> that we need "pioneers" and folks who like the bleeding-edge.  Even one
>>or
>> two more folks who can work well with others would be great.  I haven't
>> gone through every page you've done, but on the main page, I think we
>>only
>> need to change the NPM section in some way.
>>
>
>IMHO, and talking about my experience with my own business and other stuff
>I tried to build and market in my professional life:
>making noise of a product that is not enough mature, use to result in a
>very bad strategy that make the opposite effect and make
>people run away from it instead of buy or adopting it.
>
>So, my plan would be to focus in make Royale do what people coming would
>expect to do, and maybe here is where we have some
>discrepancies on what we are trying to achieve.
>
>So don't worry now about website. It only needs some tweaks, and little
>work to make it ready to publish.
>We need to talk about things in Royale plan itself.
>
>
>
>> One reason for my mockup of the website in MXML was to make sure folks
>> truly understood the power of the extensible component model for Royale.
>> You are still focused on traditional interactive Applications, and I
>>agree
>> that migrating Flex apps is a key market for us, but you also seemed to
>>be
>> interested in folks creating new projects, and I wanted to illustrate
>>that
>> Royale, with MXML and an extensible component model can be a benefit
>>there
>> too.  I may be crazy, but I believe that Royale can be useful in many
>>more
>> places than what folks think of as traditional Applications.  I still
>> think we want to use Royale to produce our web site some day (which
>> doesn't have to be now).
>>
>
>I agree. I believe Royale could have a target far more open that Flex has,
>but I think we have here a warning:
>people coming to Royale will not search for a tool to make website on the
>first term. They will come to make
>things in HTML like they produced with Flex (or Angular, or something
>similar). But if they succeed, they will
>want to use Royale for all other things. So focusing on something that is
>still not the min focus is a mistake for me.
>We should focus in make Applications as easy as we did with Flex, and that
>is not happening right now.
>I tried to start building an App with Royale for the theme feature and get
>stuck as I started with Slider (I still couldn't
>get back to it and see Peter's changes). So that's for me where we are
>failing. We need to have components that work.
>And right now as we start working, things are still not working. That's my
>main point. If I want to start working in styling and
>Theming but the basic components are not working, think in people coming
>to
>us for the first time...Hope you could
>figure their opinion about Royale although we have a great and good
>looking
>website, or even if we can build some
>basic website. They simply will gone since what they expect to get out of
>the box is not working.
>
>
>
>>
>> In mocking up the site, I realized there might be content in your
>>proposed
>> site that is not ALv2 compatible, so I am suggesting changing that now,
>> otherwise, it may be much more noticeable the day we want to cut over to
>> the Royale version of the site, since the Royale version will probably
>> have to release-able as an Apache release.
>
>
>> I'm in no hurry to switch over to the Royale version of the site.  I
>>just
>> want us to take a few minutes here and there to continuously improve it.
>> I still don't know where the line is between theme and content, but if
>>the
>> colors and fonts aren't part of the theme and you can tell us what you
>> used, we can make sure the fonts will be ALv2 compatible and the Royale
>> mockup will look a little better.
>>
>
>That's what I want to said that we have no problem at all with licenses on
>the site.
>If you read the ticket we created with legal they express full support of
>our website in the current
>state, so we can publish it and have it as long as we need. And when we
>reach the point
>where we can change to a Royale website we can do that (tomorrow or 5
>years
>in the future).
>For that reason, don't worry about this and go with the things that our
>users really wants for us
>
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, you've been saying for a few months now that you want a
>>better
>> UI set, but really, I have no idea what work needs to be done when you
>>say
>> that.  I don't doubt that there are bugs and missing features in our UI
>> set, but IMO, we are not staffed with a QA team nor are we staffed to do
>> things for "completeness".  We pretty much just try to do what potential
>> users ask for on the mailing list.  Priority is given for folks
>>migrating
>> Flex apps.  Someone asked for modules so I put together basic modules.
>> Someone asked for a TreeGrid, Peter put one together.  Harbs put
>>something
>> in about Validation.  Someone asked about I18N, I showed a way to do
>>that.
>>  If you want to migrate an app (even Tour de Flex) and can show us
>> specifically what is broken, we'll try to fix it (or better yet, help
>>you
>> fix it).
>>
>
>To make theming and style working I think we need to team to make this
>work
>you or Peter have a huge skill in architecting but don't have UX skills.
>In
>the other
>hand, I can make UX thing work, but If I find stuck with something that
>doesn't work (i.e: Slider)
>I can lose lots of time figuring it and fixing it. So, my best bet is: we
>should join. We can
>choose a component (i.e: Slider) and try to build an App Example that use
>our framework changes
>to introduce styling and themeing. And try to make it good as better as we
>can to match
>most of what Flex did in the Slider case, then go with other and so on...
>
>In the end, a new user coming to us, should start building with Slider
>directly without find anything that
>make stop their work. That should be our goal, at least with 15-20
>components.
>
>
>>
>> Of course it would be better if we could match Flex 4.6, but I'll be
>>happy
>> if we can approximate Flex 1.0.  That's where it all started.  And Flex
>> 1.0 didn't have modules or I18N or a TreeGrid.  IMO, we have to be
>>clever
>> and smart about where we spend our energy and time and continuously
>> improve and continuously try to recruit new people.  We can't be like a
>> corporation with a fixed staff that builds something with limited public
>> input and then launches it.
>>
>
>I like the approach of the strand-beads, or PAYG, but in the end that
>should be something that will make
>people choose as they build. The problem right now is that we want people
>come to us and we have lots of pieces
>but many of them doesn't work well, or directly doesn't work at all. PAYG
>and compositions vs inheritance will be
>a key factor in we reach something that works like Flex (or near it), We
>can target Flex 1.0 since in that version
>most of components worked pretty well, Button, TextInput, Slider, List,
>ComboBox, CheckBox, RadioButton.
>I was trapped by Flex since I started to build, and things worked out of
>the box!! That's not happening with Royale right now,
>and we thing that people will understand that and expect they use all that
>is done so they can build on their own, but
>that will never happen since people expect to adopt a framework that make
>his life easier, and Royale in the current state
>will make the opposite.
>
>>
>> I hope we do have different things in mind.  I know my mind does not
>>have
>> all of the answers.  We need good ideas from different people, including
>> yourself.  We have this mailing list to try to get some level of mutual
>> understanding, but folks are still free to scratch their own itch.  We
>> don't even need to all agree, we just have to try to not get in each
>> other's way, and try to help folks succeed in scratching their itch if
>>it
>> makes sense.
>>
>
>Right, we only need to reach a state where we can make enough noise to
>make
>people come (publish website, spreading the word to the four winds,...)
>but we should ensure we have something that really works or the result
>will
>be people saying very bad things about Royale, and that's not what we
>want.
>We want the opposite. For that reason this is very important.
>
>
>
>>
>> So, I don't know how much time you have, but in summary my requests of
>>you
>> would be (in order):
>>
>
>going through this list
>
>>
>> 1) Make some tweaks to the site to try to recruit more committers
>>instead
>> of users
>>
>This is difficult since what we are supporting Royale is currently what we
>are and
>all know what we want to get. getting more people on board will happen
>when
>people
>try us, see Royale work and want to improve it.
>
>> 2) Tell us the colors and fonts used on the site and whether you chose
>> those colors and fonts or whether they are part of the theme
>>
>As I said, colors and fonts are chosen by me. But that's not a problem,
>even nothing about licenses in website
>
>> 3) Replace ET-Line font in your version of the site or show us that it
>>is
>> ALv2 compatible
>>
>Againg, we don't have license problems as Apache legal give us green light
>in the current state.
>
>> 4) Try to build something with Royale so you can be more specific about
>> what is missing/broken.  Maybe you could try to make our ASDoc example
>> look and work better.  That might expose some things the UI set needs
>>that
>> is more tangible.
>>
>> I can go again over Royale Theme example app and try Peter's changes.
>Hopefully the Slider could be working now,
>but if that's ok, we should try to team to revise each component and try
>to
>make it working out-of-the-box, in look and feel,
>layout, events and so on.
>
>If we don't get that, don't expect Royale to convince people out there, or
>don't expect that our component model and features
>do that, since they are great if are features build over a good working
>technology. That's the main point I want to try to express here.
>
>
>
>
>
>> I pretty much agree that we don't want to give users the impression that
>> Royale is a UI set that is the equivalent of React before it is, but I
>> think we need to get a release out soon and try to establish a workflow
>> where we can release more often, so we can continuously improve the
>> releases.  And the UI set probably won't be as ready as you would like
>>it
>> in these first releases.  I just think we need to do that in order to
>>try
>> to attract one or two more committers to help us make a better UI set,
>>and
>> attract one or two more users who are willing to ride a bumpy road with
>>us
>> so they can be a testimonial to attract other users and slowly build up
>> momentum. I don't think we can make big leaps.
>>
>
>I'm with you that we need a first release as soon as we can to build over
>the rest. But only to put the wagon on rails
>For me that release only would be something like the actual website. Tools
>to prepare Royale to get what it really needs:
>A good working UI set that looks good and behaves ok so I can build a
>first
>app without much hassle. At that point all
>the tools could be in the end be use to show and spread the word to
>people.
>And that people will find at that time that Royale
>works and would eventually join to us as user or as devs to improve it.
>
>Making things in a incorrect order, would make us have a horrible result,
>I
>guess
>
>Thanks
>
>Carlos