incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carol Frampton <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:10:53 GMT

I believe Adobe is selling support contracts for Adobe Flex version 4.6.

Apache Flex, although initially the same codebase as Adobe Flex 4.6, would
be a different product.  The community can take it in whatever direction
it would like to go.


-----Original Message-----
From: Raju Bitter <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:13 -0800
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator

>Thanks for the quick response, Greg!
>On 12/20/11 9:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:30, Raju Bitter<>
>>> ...
>>> 2) Action Script Virtual Machine (AVM)
>>> In November 2006 Adobe open source the Flash Player Script engine:
>>> Is the source code of Tamarin still the current version of the Action
>>> Virtual Machine in Flash Player 11? If there is a new version of the
>>> (2+), will that be contributed to the Apache Software Foundation as
>>> It doesn't really make sense to only contribute a compiler, if there
>>>is no
>>> open source implementation of a runtime/scripting engine available,
>>>but that
>>> might only be my personal view. If the community would decide to
>>>create a an
>>> open standards based runtime for Flex, would that mean the community
>>> have to start from zero?
>> I think that's just your personal view :-)
>That's true, but still would be good to have an open source, up-to-date
>scripting engine for ActionScript bytecode to enable other future
>runtimes (imagine running the same ActionScript 3 code in the client and
>on the server, like node.js). Therefore it would be very valuable to
>know if Tamarin is still compatible with the scripting engine Flash
>Player 11.
>> There is a ton of open source code written to work against Oracle's
>> RDBMS, or Windows' .NET runtime, or Apple's iOS. I see no problem with
>> Apache Flex targeting a proprietary environment.
>I'm not sure which projects you are talking about: .NET runtime should
>be compatible to Mono,
>>> 3) Commercial support for Apache Flex
>>> Does Adobe plan to offer support for an Apache Flex product? If yes,
>>> kind of support would be planned. I read somewhere that Adobe will not
>>> any support for Flex 4.6+ to new customers, but I'm not sure, if that's
>>> still the current plan.
>> I think this is orthogonal/unrelated to the Apache Flex proposal.
>I think it is related to the proposal. If Adobe has binding contracts
>for future versions of Flex, and the Apache community would decide to
>change Apache Flex 4.7 implementation details, Adobe might be forced to
>fork the project for customers. How would that work?
>>> 4) Flash Player
>>> Are there any plans to open source a stripped-down version of Flash
>>> e.g. the discontinued version of Flash Player for mobile) in the future
>>> (similar to the pure open source Flex SDK vs. the commercial SDK)? The
>>> Apache community could continue working on a browser-based mobile
>>> for Apache Flex, if that was the case.
>> Likewise.
>Isn't it a valid question to ask which runtimes will be available for a
>a framework with compiler? To be technically correct, Flex applications
>WON'T run in mobile browsers without a Flash Player (which means you
>won't see a Flex application on iOS). You CAN compile a Flex application
>into a mobile application using the Adobe AIR SDK and the Adobe AIR
>player. The proposal mentions rich Internet applications running in
>desktop and mobile browsers. Elsewhere iOS is mentioned. As we all know,
>Flash applications (SWF files) cannot be rendered in iOS browser.
>Therefore the question if there will be a way run mobile Flex
>applications in mobile browsers as rich Internet applications (versus
>native apps) is very valid in my eyes.
>>> I hope I don't sound to skeptical here, but Adobe Flex is quite
>>> from most Apache projects I've been in contact with. It's a powerful
>>> compiler with an interesting language, but it looks like the output of
>>> compiler can only be used with Adobe-owned proprietary software at the
>>> moment.
>> As I mentioned above, I don't see this as a problem whatsoever. And
>> even if *some* people have a problem with it, there is a huge
>> committer list of people who obviously have zero problem with that
>> fact. The Foundation is here to provide support to communities, rather
>> than block them on philosophical rationales. (IMO :-) So if a
>> community wants to build up around Apache Flex, then we do what we can
>> to help them.
>I've been using Flash for the past 8 years in projects, organized Flex
>User Group meetings, co-organized events with Adobe. I have a good
>understanding of what Flash, ActionScript and AIR are capable off, how
>many people are using Flash, how useful it can be.
>But none of the companies offering RIA related products and players in
>the past 7 years (Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, to name the big ones)
>has not been affected by strategy changes of the management, often
>leaving developers and clients in positions which were less optimal.
>(Adobe Flex 1.5 -> 2.0 changes, differences in Silverlight APIs with
>major version upgrades, Sun/Oracle dumping JavaFX Script, Microsoft's
>decision to favor HTML5 over Silverlight).
>Adobe decided to discontinue development of Flash Player for mobile
>devices and smart TVs (it's a company decision, we have to respect
>that, but it wasn't easy for large number of people to hear those
>news). If they would decide to discontinue the desktop version of
>Flash Player, wouldn't it be good if the community would have an
>alternative runtime prepared already? I believe it is in the interest
>of the Apache Flex community to have an alternative runtime for Flex
>in the not-too-far future, and if Adobe would express support of that
>goal , it would be very valuable.
>The proposal might have a sentence saying: "Adobe will provide the
>Apache community with the technical information needed to develop
>additional runtimes for Flex." Would that be acceptable?
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>Thanks again for you comments!
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message