Comments on: So How Does the Fx Prefix in Gumbo Rub You? http://blog.simb.net/2009/02/10/so-how-does-the-fx-prefix-in-gumbo-rub-you/ Because I said so... Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:25:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Nick Kwiatkowski http://blog.simb.net/2009/02/10/so-how-does-the-fx-prefix-in-gumbo-rub-you/comment-page-1/#comment-5773 Nick Kwiatkowski Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:05:43 +0000 http://blog.simb.net/?p=1954#comment-5773 Corrections because blog strips out &gt and &lt What I want to know is, why don’t we just have a new namespace? Have legacy code be &lt mx:Button &gt and the new code be &lt fx:Button &gt ? Both can live in the same apps, and interop among eachother. I personally do this with my own custom components…. I know I can’t be the only person who thought of this, so there has to be a technicial reason for it. I fully agree that we shouldn’t break existing code. We don’t want to go in the .NET path and break entire applications between frameworks. We already did that once, and that was hard enough! <b>editors note: I removed the extra post</b> Corrections because blog strips out &gt and &lt

What I want to know is, why don’t we just have a new namespace? Have legacy code be &lt mx:Button &gt and the new code be &lt fx:Button &gt ? Both can live in the same apps, and interop among eachother. I personally do this with my own custom components…. I know I can’t be the only person who thought of this, so there has to be a technicial reason for it.
I fully agree that we shouldn’t break existing code. We don’t want to go in the .NET path and break entire applications between frameworks. We already did that once, and that was hard enough!

editors note: I removed the extra post

]]> By: Matt Chotin http://blog.simb.net/2009/02/10/so-how-does-the-fx-prefix-in-gumbo-rub-you/comment-page-1/#comment-5767 Matt Chotin Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:33:31 +0000 http://blog.simb.net/?p=1954#comment-5767 Hi Garth, You should feel free to post this to the other sites since we would have responded. I think that if you are building something that claims to be a platform you have obligations to developers who have already committed to your platform that you not break everything. Most programming languages and component sets (think Java and Swing for example) take great pains to not break the contracts that existed previously. We don't intend to hamper innovation by being compatible into perpetuity, but I don't think being compatible for a major release is a bad thing. Matt Hi Garth,

You should feel free to post this to the other sites since we would have responded. I think that if you are building something that claims to be a platform you have obligations to developers who have already committed to your platform that you not break everything. Most programming languages and component sets (think Java and Swing for example) take great pains to not break the contracts that existed previously.

We don’t intend to hamper innovation by being compatible into perpetuity, but I don’t think being compatible for a major release is a bad thing.

Matt

]]> By: Garth Braithwaite http://blog.simb.net/2009/02/10/so-how-does-the-fx-prefix-in-gumbo-rub-you/comment-page-1/#comment-5762 Garth Braithwaite Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:18:03 +0000 http://blog.simb.net/?p=1954#comment-5762 I'm sure you wanted me to post that at the other sites, but I don't think they would even give it a glance. By declaring the initial statement it seems more like they are justifying the Fx prefix than actually looking for a problem. I’m sure you wanted me to post that at the other sites, but I don’t think they would even give it a glance. By declaring the initial statement it seems more like they are justifying the Fx prefix than actually looking for a problem.

]]> By: Garth Braithwaite http://blog.simb.net/2009/02/10/so-how-does-the-fx-prefix-in-gumbo-rub-you/comment-page-1/#comment-5761 Garth Braithwaite Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:14:36 +0000 http://blog.simb.net/?p=1954#comment-5761 My main problem with the Fx prefix stem from the first two points Matt pointed out - Flex 4 aims to be compile-time compatible with Flex 3. This means that we cannot rename existing classes nor break major interface contracts. - Given we can't rename existing classes, what package naming structure makes sense if new classes will overlap with existing. Is Flex 4 and upgrade or not? How can you upgrade without deprecating code? I understand not wanting to overlap naming, but then the legacy components need to have a legacy prefix for the legacy components. The preferential treatment shouldn't go to old code. I understand Adobe's point of view I think. They want to sell Flex Builder 4 to people without hearing complaints about being forced to update their code. I personally think if people want to use Flex 3 they should use Flex 3, if they want to use Flex 4 they should upgrade their code. My main problem with the Fx prefix stem from the first two points Matt pointed out

- Flex 4 aims to be compile-time compatible with Flex 3. This means that we cannot rename existing classes nor break major interface contracts.
- Given we can’t rename existing classes, what package naming structure makes sense if new classes will overlap with existing.

Is Flex 4 and upgrade or not? How can you upgrade without deprecating code? I understand not wanting to overlap naming, but then the legacy components need to have a legacy prefix for the legacy components. The preferential treatment shouldn’t go to old code.

I understand Adobe’s point of view I think. They want to sell Flex Builder 4 to people without hearing complaints about being forced to update their code. I personally think if people want to use Flex 3 they should use Flex 3, if they want to use Flex 4 they should upgrade their code.

]]>