invite Adobe employees. or not, ideas

[Tom Chiverton]

I think we should. However, I agree that it mustn't be 'yet another
forum I have to read'. Maybe a mention that it exists, and a heads up
that they'll hear from us from time to time (Ben, that's probably your
job :-) ) would suffice.

My first thought would be bringing Matt on board, of course, though as
we're going to be discussing FxButton soon, it would be great if Ely
or someone from the actual day-to-day programming team could 'pop in'
to help us out, much like how you'll hear from the developers in many
of the Adobe pre-release programs.

--
Tom

[Simeon Bateman]

To be honest I am not sure that we are ready to bring them on yet. I
think that there will be a time when we need to open up the discussion
to them, but I think we still have some sorting out on our own to do.

I also think that if we open this forum we might end up creating
something else so we can talk privately as a group. Then again I say
that and that is exactly what I hate about Adobe's planning so then I
think we should open up the whole dam group to anyone. Only the
people who want to will participate and everyone is better for more
support.

So I think that we might not yet want to invite them, but that we will
want to in a bit.

Thanks,
sim

[Tom Chiverton]

2009/2/2 Simeon Bateman <simba...@gmail.com>:

> I also think that if we open this forum we might end up creating
> something else so we can talk privately as a group. Then again I say
> that and that is exactly what I hate about Adobe's planning so then I
> think we should open up the whole dam group to anyone. Only the
> people who want to will participate and everyone is better for more
> support.

Exactly. The archives of this group are public, so when we sort out
our 'who we are', people can see what we do.

> So I think that we might not yet want to invite them, but that we will
> want to in a bit.

Yup.
There is some mechanics to work out yet.

--
Tom

[Adam Flater]

Maybe this is a silly question... is there a formal justification from Adobe for the Fx prefix? It seems like they decided 4 would ditch the mx namespace and then decided some of the components from 3 to 4 needed to be differentiated, thus the Fx prefix... which, to Brian's eloquently made point, is the job of a namespace and the per view of the developer to enforce. Wouldn't we be more successful in defeating th Fx if we had a clear idea of their justification for it?

Am I off here?

-adam

[Tom Chiverton]

2009/2/2 Adam Flater <adamf...@gmail.com>:

> Maybe this is a silly question... is there a formal justification from Adobe
> for the Fx prefix?

From https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/SDK-17854 we have
http://iamdeepa.com/blog/?p=34 (yes, a blog entry !).
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Gumbo seems silent on
the matter.
--
Tom

[Brian Holmes]

I think the comments on deepa's blog pretty much sum up the feelings
of the community. Didn't read all of them, but didn't find any in
favor of the FX. It sounds like the driving force behind the FX is
tools integration, mainly flash catalyst. Her other arguments, such as
css or asdocs don't seem valid to me. The only job of a namespace is
to disambiguate.

so -1 for FX.


On Feb 2, 9:18 am, Tom Chiverton <tom.chiver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/2 Adam Flater <adamfla...@gmail.com>:

>
> > Maybe this is a silly question... is there a formal justification from Adobe
> > for the Fx prefix?
>

> Fromhttps://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/SDK-17854we havehttp://iamdeepa.com/blog/?p=34(yes, a blog entry !).http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Gumboseems silent on
> the matter.
> --
> Tom