Flash app -> AIR

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Flash app -> AIR

Blake McBride
Greetings,

I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?

Thanks.

Blake McBride
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

piotrz
Hi Blake,

Well AIR would be the easiest cause in best case you won't change single
line in your core app.

Another option is Apache Royale, but if you are saying about fast option
it's probably don't fit to that.

Thanks,
Piotr



On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:25 PM Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Blake McBride
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

ScottM
In reply to this post by Blake McBride
AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...

Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the WebKit stuff is not difficult

With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this approach

In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1 day

Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again



Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Blake McBride

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

piotrz
Hi Scott,

I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end?

Thanks,
Piotr

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
>
> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
> WebKit stuff is not difficult
>
> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
> approach
>
> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
> day
>
> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
> porting again
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
> > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
> > AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Blake McBride
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Blake McBride
In reply to this post by ScottM
Hi.  Thanks for the response.  I have some questions below.

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:42 AM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
>
> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
> WebKit stuff is not difficult
>
> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
> approach
>
> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
> day
>

Since my Flash front-end talks to the back-end with SOAP & REST, I am able
to create an equivalent HTML front-end without changing the back-end.   But
that is essentially a re-write of the front-end, and with 450 screens,
that's a bit of a task.  I do not understand what you mean by "keeps all
the as3 code" since the required JavaScript code for the HTML is very
different.  I also don't know what "converted to TrueType" means since
that's just a font.



> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
> porting again
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
> > Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
> > AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Blake McBride
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

ScottM
In reply to this post by piotrz
So I am an old program  60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times

As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success

Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be  a dead end

Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time    

Sent from my iPad

> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end?
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
>>
>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
>> WebKit stuff is not difficult
>>
>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
>> approach
>>
>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
>> day
>>
>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
>> porting again
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
>>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
>>> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Blake McBride
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

ScottM
In reply to this post by Blake McBride
Yes with 450 screen that’s a big job, air or the local wed browse is the simple approach

We went with royal, the design approach is the same as flex, we started by creating 1 to 1 components, the new compounded are JS CSS SVGS in our case about 30 components

The royal component architecture is identical  to flex so your front end logic does not need to change, we had a simple, MVC design

As for AS3 we used a converter to TrueType, the code logic is the same, we used a tool and a bit manual work, we took the operation to add testing

We do have a simpler application, 30 screens that generated about 1000 screens
, we planned on 6 man months work, we are 3 into the project and on track, we will end up with a stand application, in the sweet spot of the industry, royal will never be in the sweet spot for the industry

It is a big hit on cost and time, but we have a future, this app has been running is some form or other for 20 plus years, this is our 3rd rewrite we started with a desk top products toolbook 1995, which was good for 15 years, then we moved to flex 2010, and html5 from 2200

Happy to provide detailed information if you need

Scott

Sent from my iPad

> On 22 Jun 2019, at 17:03, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi.  Thanks for the response.  I have some questions below.
>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:42 AM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
>>
>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
>> WebKit stuff is not difficult
>>
>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
>> approach
>>
>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
>> day
>>
>
> Since my Flash front-end talks to the back-end with SOAP & REST, I am able
> to create an equivalent HTML front-end without changing the back-end.   But
> that is essentially a re-write of the front-end, and with 450 screens,
> that's a bit of a task.  I do not understand what you mean by "keeps all
> the as3 code" since the required JavaScript code for the HTML is very
> different.  I also don't know what "converted to TrueType" means since
> that's just a font.
>
>
>
>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
>> porting again
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
>>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
>>> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Blake McBride
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by ScottM
One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can pull the plug.  Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any say in their projects.  If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can.

As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve releases, the projects can live on at the ASF.  The community only has to be large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing lists and process releases.

-Alex

On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    So I am an old program  60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times
   
    As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success
   
    Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be  a dead end
   
    Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time    
   
    Sent from my iPad
   
    > On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    > Hi Scott,
    >
    > I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Piotr
    >
    >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >>
    >> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
    >> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
    >>
    >> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
    >> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
    >> WebKit stuff is not difficult
    >>
    >> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
    >> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
    >> approach
    >>
    >> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
    >> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
    >> day
    >>
    >> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
    >> porting again
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Sent from my iPhone
    >>
    >>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Greetings,
    >>>
    >>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
    >>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
    >>> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> Blake McBride
    >>
    >>
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

ScottM
Alex
       I fully understand and wish you all the best, but as a small developer i need to look at what is best for my development, i will keep a eye on Royal

> On 23 Jun 2019, at 06:26, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can pull the plug.  Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any say in their projects.  If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can.
>
> As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve releases, the projects can live on at the ASF.  The community only has to be large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing lists and process releases.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>    So I am an old program  60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times
>
>    As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success
>
>    Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be  a dead end
>
>    Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time    
>
>    Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
>>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
>>>
>>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
>>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
>>> WebKit stuff is not difficult
>>>
>>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
>>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
>>> approach
>>>
>>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
>>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
>>> day
>>>
>>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
>>> porting again
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
>>>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
>>>> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Blake McBride
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Alex Harui-2


On 6/23/19, 11:51 AM, "Scott Matheson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Alex
           I fully understand and wish you all the best, but as a small developer i need to look at what is best for my development, i will keep a eye on Royal
   
For sure, you have to do what's best for you.  Another good thing about Apache projects is that you can be one of the 3 PMC members who keeps Royale or Flex going.  The members of an Apache project are all volunteers from Apache's perspective.  I may be an employee of Adobe, but neither I nor any other member of Royale or Flex had to be "hired" by Apache.  Instead, you or Blake or anyone can contribute patches in your spare time, earn committer rights, learn how to cut and review releases and earn PMC membership.  Then you have permanent stake in the project.  All you need to cut a future release is two others to help you review it.  You can commit bug fixes or new features as long as they don't conflict with someone else's commits.  There is no product manager or business people deciding what goes in the next release or when the next release is.  Try getting a bug fix accepted and released by some other large-ish non-Apache projects.  It can be a challenge.

Sometimes, the best way to control the future is to contribute to it.

My 2 cents,
-Alex


    > On 23 Jun 2019, at 06:26, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    > One of the reasons Flex and Royale are at Apache is so no corporation can pull the plug.  Apache specifically does not allow corporations to have any say in their projects.  If Adobe decides to stop paying me to work on Flex and/or Royale, if I can find some other way to get paid to do it, I can.
    >
    > As long as there are 3 PMC members who can get it together to approve releases, the projects can live on at the ASF.  The community only has to be large enough to keep 3 PMC members motivated to participate on the mailing lists and process releases.
    >
    > -Alex
    >
    > On 6/22/19, 1:35 PM, "Scott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    >    So I am an old program  60 so I would say I have seen it all many time over, we have tried/looked at royal a number of times
    >
    >    As for royal, sorry it is late, we needed royal to be in full production 2 years ago, when we tried royal we kept finding new issues or missing elements, yes I know this is community code and I wish the project all the success
    >
    >    Now for the real issue, community unless there is a big user community then the key developed will do something else, just look at what happened to flex when adobe pull the plug, this could happened again and who is to say it will not, then royal will be  a dead end
    >
    >    Sorry that’s just my view, over 40 years of development I have seen this happen many time    
    >
    >    Sent from my iPad
    >
    >> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:48, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Hi Scott,
    >>
    >> I'm curious why are thinking that Royale is a dead end?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Piotr
    >>
    >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 4:42 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> AIR is a good option but you have the update  install problems, the
    >>> solutions are out there and air will do auto update etc ...
    >>>
    >>> Google web frame work well, you install a browser, that looks a desk top
    >>> app but run the flex app like today, I have tried this and it work well the
    >>> WebKit stuff is not difficult
    >>>
    >>> With the new commercial owners of air etc you should be able to come to a
    >>> deal on the desk top install of flash, I have talked to Andrew about this
    >>> approach
    >>>
    >>> In our case we had the skills and due to timing we went for a UX port to
    >>> HTML5 but keeps all the as3 code, we converted to TrueType in less that 1
    >>> day
    >>>
    >>> Royal is an option but to hard and IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be
    >>> porting again
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sent from my iPhone
    >>>
    >>>> On 22 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Blake McBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Greetings,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a large Flex(3.5)/Flash app that (obviously) runs under a browser.
    >>>> Since the Flash player is going away, I am wondering if I should consider
    >>>> AIR.  What are my other options?  What's easiest?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>> Blake McBride
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Olaf Krueger
In reply to this post by ScottM
Hi,

> Royal is ... IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again

I think this is valid for all of the tech stacks/frameworks out there.
Depending on the use case, Royale could be the best option... or even not.
But it's always worth to give it a try like any other tech stack or
framework out there which might fits your needs.
Nothing lives forever, maybe Google's Angular will be eaten by Googles
Flutter, maybe Vue.js will take over React, maybe... nobody knows.

I guess the time where we could stick with one tech stack over a decade is
long gone.
Things are changing incredibly fast these days, today's hottest hype may be
forgotten tomorrow.
I think we have to re-think our decisions from project to project, depending
on the project's needs, the available tooling, libs, developers etc.

Just my 2cents, even if this is not helpful ;-)
Olaf










--
Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Olaf Krueger
In reply to this post by Blake McBride
Hi,

>I am wondering if I should consider AIR

As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser,  AIR probably
means the least effort.
Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license changed and
they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR
forwards.

> ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task

I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need. Take a
look at the Royale Jewel component set.
Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's probably
less time-consuming than rewriting anything.
Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems.

Olaf

[1] https://services.harman.com/partners/adobe




--
Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

ScottM
In reply to this post by Olaf Krueger
Olaf
       I Totally agree, back in 2009 I spend 1 year looking a frameworks, going round and round reading all the stuff trying to balance one evangelist vs another evangelist, then o read something that said there is no answer pick want  works for you, in my case I needed rich UX, at the time that meant Flex and off I went

When I say " evangelist,”  these guys create a lot of noise and you need to understand how the get “paid” / ‘rewarded” cash clicks or  ego etc. you have to try and filter all this out and work out what's best for you or pick something that you think will be with us for a long time

Angular was a the big hope, Goggle is a big player
Then React, well face book is a big player  
Now well maybe Vue.js
 
I long for the day of Flash / Flex  rules the world

PS keeps us all in a job :)


> On 24 Jun 2019, at 09:58, Olaf Krueger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Royal is ... IMHO a dead end, in a few years your be porting again
>
> I think this is valid for all of the tech stacks/frameworks out there.
> Depending on the use case, Royale could be the best option... or even not.
> But it's always worth to give it a try like any other tech stack or
> framework out there which might fits your needs.
> Nothing lives forever, maybe Google's Angular will be eaten by Googles
> Flutter, maybe Vue.js will take over React, maybe... nobody knows.
>
> I guess the time where we could stick with one tech stack over a decade is
> long gone.
> Things are changing incredibly fast these days, today's hottest hype may be
> forgotten tomorrow.
> I think we have to re-think our decisions from project to project, depending
> on the project's needs, the available tooling, libs, developers etc.
>
> Just my 2cents, even if this is not helpful ;-)
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Krueger
Also note that in examples/mxroyale/tourdeflexmodules, I used the emulation components to migrate over 100 screens by not rewriting them much at all.  There are still some bugs to be ironed out, but if volunteers pitch in, they will be resolved.

-Alex

On 6/24/19, 2:25 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Hi,
   
    >I am wondering if I should consider AIR
   
    As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser,  AIR probably
    means the least effort.
    Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license changed and
    they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR
    forwards.
   
    > ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task
   
    I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need. Take a
    look at the Royale Jewel component set.
    Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's probably
    less time-consuming than rewriting anything.
    Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems.
   
    Olaf
   
    [1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.harman.com%2Fpartners%2Fadobe&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191&amp;sdata=ZCf5Aj8bHugE5rVRCJ%2BO9wcsvEIuRjP7uiWl7heQtPg%3D&amp;reserved=0
   
   
   
   
    --
    Sent from: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191&amp;sdata=QOfyJYG0fh4nUNuSebZUK2gQhvkHufaQtdiOzOYf3YI%3D&amp;reserved=0
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash app -> AIR

Carlos Rovira-2
Hi,

for me the best options today are:

* AIR: If you don't need the browser, you can still have more years to
avoid a more time consuming migration. Harman seems taking the torch to
manage Adobe AIR in a good way. Maybe to early to say anything now, but AIR
seems in good hands.

* Apache Royale: We already migrated a big Flex application to Apache
Royale and it took us considerable less time than go to any other tech out
there. We reused around 70-80% of flex code and rewrite UI with Jewel in
part since we need a more modern and mobile UI. That's a huge fact.

In the other hand Apache Royale is each day/week/month better thanks to
people contributing and continue refining the solution so bugs are
continuely pursued and solved and we are getting more and more real use
cases working good. Think in the work of the past few weeks, I can remember
things like, implementing as3 Vector, improving release process to make it
super-easy, Jewel Modules, How to use external JS libraries easily (blog
post), working with ElectronJS (blog post), many improvments over compiler
and framework code to solve bugs in language constructions, implementation
of new things like abstract class and private constructors, .... just to
mention what I remember right now...amazing, right? Think what more things
we'll get over the next months...

Other considerations can be respected, but not taken like something that
will eventually occur. Fear is normal. Fear in Royale's future is all
depending only on us (no more Adobe, Googleo or Facebook) and I think we
have a very focused team at Apache Royale with very valuable people: Alex
Harui, Josh Tynjala, Piotr, Harbs, Yshay, Olaf, Andrew, Greg Dove and many
more...Many people that believes in the project. We don't need Apache
Royale to be as successful as Angular or React. Think on haXe, is not as
popular, but maybe one of the best cross platform techs out there and with
a healthy community. One key to succeed is don't listen to naysayers, and
just go our way. Naysayers will be always there, telling you "this is not
possible". Ok, in my experience, all things I tried many things that seems
impossible and some succeed. Apache Royale is now working nowadays despite
those naysayers.

Apache Royale is nowadays a reality, ready to use and you just need to
believe in it and most important, think that you need to get involved in
the project as other part of the project to master and control it. Most of
the people that fails with a technology is because are thinking in the old
way where all things should come from a company like Adobe. This is not
valid anymore, and you need to be more active in mailing list and
participate, propose, learn, contribute and pursue what you need to make it
done and available to the rest of the community. People waiting for others
to make the job, will find many problems in the way and probably will not
get success with Royale until more time pass and it becomes lots of
maturity.

HTH

Carlos



El mar., 25 jun. 2019 a las 4:19, Alex Harui (<[hidden email]>)
escribió:

> Also note that in examples/mxroyale/tourdeflexmodules, I used the
> emulation components to migrate over 100 screens by not rewriting them much
> at all.  There are still some bugs to be ironed out, but if volunteers
> pitch in, they will be resolved.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/24/19, 2:25 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     >I am wondering if I should consider AIR
>
>     As already mentioned, if you don't need to target the browser,  AIR
> probably
>     means the least effort.
>     Notice that since AIR was taken over by Harman [1], the license
> changed and
>     they introduced a pricing strategy in order to be able to drive AIR
>     forwards.
>
>     > ...with 450 screens, that's a bit of a task
>
>     I think in case of Royale it's a matter of the components you need.
> Take a
>     look at the Royale Jewel component set.
>     Even if it would be time-consuming to rewrite 450 screens, it's
> probably
>     less time-consuming than rewriting anything.
>     Most of your AS3 code will probably transpile without any problems.
>
>     Olaf
>
>     [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.harman.com%2Fpartners%2Fadobe&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191&amp;sdata=ZCf5Aj8bHugE5rVRCJ%2BO9wcsvEIuRjP7uiWl7heQtPg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Sent from:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C23baec10af8f40d0243408d6f885d48e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636969651015534191&amp;sdata=QOfyJYG0fh4nUNuSebZUK2gQhvkHufaQtdiOzOYf3YI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>

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