Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

Adobe Open Sources Flex SDK Under MPL 134

Posted by kdawson
from the for-real dept.
andy_from_nc writes "Adobe announced that they are open sourcing their Flex SDK under the Mozilla Public License incrementally by December. This move comes on the heels of Microsoft's announcement of their Silverlight and Adobe's CEO's criticism of it. Adobe's action will likely please other open source developers who use Flex, like me, and offers hope that we'll see a full open source version of Flash one day. You can read Adobe's FAQ on the move as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Open Sources Flex SDK Under MPL

Comments Filter:
  • Game UI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:40AM (#18884533)
    I've seen some talk lately about using Flash to create GUIs for games and other 3D apps. I would think that open-sourcing Flex would get those same people to think about using it instead. I think this is probably a pretty solid move for Adobe and will drive adoption of Flex quite a bit faster.

    The ability to improve it yourself definitely doesn't hurt, either.
    • by tenchiken (22661)
      I think it's a solid move, but there are some things here that give me pause. Part of the reason HTML and CSS have worked so well for the internet is because View Source is always available. AS a compiled technology, that's not true here. XAML extends the basic principles of HTML, with spiffy graphic tools, but keeps the same basic markup structure and semantics as HTML/CSS.

      Now, since Microsoft isn't about to open XAML, that's a quandary, but I would love to see Flex integrated directly into Firefox/XUL to
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Beau6183 (899597)
        Viewable source is a compilation option in flex applications (example: http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/inproduct/sdk/flex store/flexstore.html [adobe.com] right click to view source). The beauty of Flex / flash is that it's contained in it's own "cross platform" VM, making it totally independent of the browser. I would think that any tight integration into any browser would be a poor move for adobe/flex/flash.
        • by mi (197448)

          The beauty of Flex / flash is that it's contained in it's own "cross platform" VM, making it totally independent of the browser. I would think that any tight integration into any browser would be a poor move for adobe/flex/flash.

          What's so beautiful? Have we given up on the idea of "standards"? Where I am, having an implementation define the standard is considered rather ugly, if not flat-out wrong...

      • by godefroi (52421)
        Yeah, then EVERYONE would use it. I hear IE gets XUL in the next version. And Opera too. Oh, and it's great on mobile browsers.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I used to work for EA, specifically on development of the front-end.

      They've been using a Flash implementation called APT for their front-ends for some time now. Originally developed at Tiburon, I believe its now standard across the company. I was never able to find out the details of the licensing agreement between them and Adobe/Macromedia.

      In my experience, Flash can be incredibly effective for building game FEs. The best part is that artists can use the (very mature) Flash authoring tools to import and ma
      • by Aladrin (926209)
        "Just don't let them write any Actionscript."

        Hah! I bet it's almost as dangerous as let me have the whiteboard marker. ;)

        Thanks for sharing that info. I've only seen it in the open source community and didn't realize it had been done commercially already. It's too bad you have to do it Anon.
  • Open sourcing Flex is nice and all, but if Adobe really wants to score points with the F/OSS community they will release Linux-native versions of their development environments for Flex development, including a free or community version like Microsoft's "Express" developer products for dotNET.
    • by WarwickRyan (780794) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:56AM (#18884769)
      Flex Builder 2 is provided as an Eclipse plugin, so it's platform independant.

      Quick google for "flex under linux" returns a blog detailing support: http://blog.davr.org/2007/04/22/flex-builder-201-u nder-linux/ [davr.org].

      Adobe really impress me with Flex..
      • ..and you can always use your own editor and compile with the free compiler.

        If you want to complain, then complain about the fact that they've not opened Flash Player 9.
        • hey at least there is a Flash 9 for linux at all 1 support "us" {---- we are here 2 Support "us" on our terms 3 we support You
          • by Godji (957148)
            Sure, I'm so enjoying Flash 9 on my AMD64 machine.

            Sarcasm intended.
            • by AaronW (33736)
              It works just fine on my 64-bit machine running a 64-bit browser [konqueror.org] that uses a separate 32-bit program to run the plugins. I wish Firefox would take Konqueror's plugin approach so that a runaway plugin does not kill the browser and it's possible to do things like limit memory and CPU usage by plugins, or kill all plugins without shutting down the browser.
              • by Godji (957148)
                I agree it's possible, and I also run Konqeuror by default, but that's not the point. Using 32bit software on a 64bit machine is just wrong. Using proprietary software is also just wrong. I'd rather gno with the currectly very limited Gnash, which is even worse on Konqueror than on Firefox. That, or no Flash at all.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bcrowell (177657)
          ..and you can always use your own editor and compile with the free compiler.
          1. MTASC doesn't support actionscript 3.
          2. Haxe does support actoinscript 3, but it's a different language, so it isn't source code compatible with Adobe's compilers.
          3. MP3 is the only audio codec that's supported by flash, and the mpegla licensing terms make it illegal to distribute MP3 decoders in large numbers for free, without paying royalties. (I believe ubuntu, for example, pays royalties for the privilege of distributing it fo
      • by Beau6183 (899597) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:20AM (#18885203) Homepage
        Clarification: You can HACK FB2 to run under Linux, but it does not have any native support (no installer, no technical support). We recently had a meeting with the Flex team at my company and their view is that Linux does not represent the majority of their market, and at the time they were here they expressed no immediate interest in moving toward a Linux-supported product. I really wish they'd extend the open-source movement to FB2 as well because quite honestly -- it sucks. It's a severe memory hog, it is lacking several key bits of functionality like automatic code formatting for ActionScript and MXML, no built-in support for refactoring, and is a pain to get working with relatively-pathed library projects.
        • True, they've a lot of work to do with it. The code-suggest feature really need to tell you method return types / property types.
    • by MrCopilot (871878)
      release Linux-native versions of their development environments for Flex development, including a free or community version like Microsoft's "Express" developer products for dotNET.

      FTA:
      Developers can use the Flex SDK to freely develop and deploy Flex applications using either Adobe Flex Builder or an IDE of their choice.
      dot.net Express runs on linux natively, I had no MS had come around that far./sarcasm

      What is available are linux native IDEs that support dotNET (MonoDevelop). And so it shall be f

    • by eokyere (685783)
      the sdk works on linux; watch james ward create a video player in about 5 mins: http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/2006/10/19/flas h-flex-free-for-all-even-linux/ [jamesward.org] further, flex is built on eclipse, which is already free so, theoretically, nothing prevents you from taking the sdk and eclipse and creating what they have in flex builder
    • Open sourcing Flex is nice and all

      It would be, if we knew what it was. Yes, I RTFA but this was the closest thing to an explanation:

      the free Adobe Flex SDK includes the technologies developers need to build effective Flex applications, including the MXML(TM) compiler and the ActionScript(TM) 3.0 libraries that make up the popular Flex framework.

      Gee, that clears everything up.
      • by petsounds (593538)
        Flex is a framework which sits on top of Flash. It is written in Actionscript 3. It provides a set of visual and data components that help to shorten the development time of RIAs (Rich Internet Apps). The data components provide support for XML, AMF, and RPC data protocols, which can be fed into Flex's UI components via data binding. The UI components are a robust set of widgets for building form-based interfaces quickly.

        Flex also offers an enterprise-level Data Services module which provides support for re
      • by jsebrech (525647)
        Open sourcing Flex is nice and all
        It would be, if we knew what it was.


        Basically, flex is to flash what yui, dojo and gwt are to javascript.
  • Does Flex have db access? If so this might make a fun alternative to using JAVA w/ Swing for creating portable applications for viewing datasets.
    • OpenLaszlo [openlaszlo.org], a opensource toolkit that takes declaritive XML and compiles it to SWF. What it can do for datasets and backend interactivity is just awesome. Recommended cause it's neat plus it's way saner then HTML (imho), as long you're doing applications and not semantic stuff, this is where it's at. mmm. replication managers.
      • by yossie (93792) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:55AM (#18885899)
        Openlaszlo does all this, of course, and much like Flex, OpenLaszlo can output a Web2.0 app as a flash file requiring a flash plugin to run BUT it can ALSO output a dhtml file (which will run in all modern browsers) requiring NO plugin. There is a commitment to output Java ME as well, in the near future. You really have to see OpenLaszlo apps in dhtml to understand how powerful dhtml can be - Google apps are boring and dull in comparison (though astonishingly functional, to be sure..) The fact that the same source will be able to compile into any of these (and more, there is even a proof-of-concept SVG output generator..) is not only unique but opens up choices that none of the other players in this field can.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by joshv (13017)
      This is exactly what my company does. We write custom front ends in flex to visualize data. Flex has extensive support for accessing server side data via various remoting APIs.
      • by nconway (86640)
        Although note that Flex Data Services has not been open sourced, and AFAIK Adobe has not announced any plans to make it so.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by peterarm (95041)
      Flex can talk to anything on the server side by passing XML over HTTPService -- Java, .NET, Rails, etc. You can also use RemoteObject to talk AMF3 to a server.

      Shameless plug: see my signature for my book on the Flex + Rails combination :)
    • Portable? As in "cross-platform"? Hah! The hinderance is Flash. It isn't available for Solaris or any BSD. I don't consider anything to be cross-platform that requires me to reboot into a different operating system. I do realize that I'm not the average user, but part of "Free Software" means not having to run the OS that Adobe tells you to.

      Open Source Flash, and I'll start considering the technical merits of Flex. But until then it's a non-starter for cross-platform development.
  • Not impressed (Score:3, Informative)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:43AM (#18884577) Journal
    Adobe is putting small pieces on Linux (and other OSS), just when they feel attacked by MS. If they really wanted to keep doing well, they would move ALL of their work to Linux. Once they do that, they are no longer compete ting directly against MS IN MS's BACKYARD. That is a battle that adobe will lose if they try to take on MS directly.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by visualight (468005)
      I think that if they supported their CS suite (even if all they did was a winelib conversion) on Linux, Microsoft would be dead in three years.

      I would cheerfully pay Adobe for their userland apps that are supported on Linux, opensource or not.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by stunt_penguin (906223)
        If Adobe's software was on Linux I'd definitely get Ubuntu on here and start using it. I'd still have to dual-boot to get to use 3DS MAX (which doesn't run well in Wine when pushed) but I could quite happily do 99% of my multimedia work.
        • It is not 3DS, but Maya [autodesk.com] is available native for Linux. Hollywood is big on Linux, so they made a port.
          • Oh, yes of course I forgot about that. Also, Maya and MAX are now under the same roof, so who knows?

            *runs off to download latest build of ubuntu*
      • by parvenu74 (310712)
        This will happen as soon as Apple makes it possible to compile Linux-native applications from XCode. The persistent rumor is that this functionality has been there all along, just as being able to run on Intel chips was there all along. The code name for this ability back in NextStep days was "yellowbox." It would be ironic if Apple made yellowbox available for *nix and not Windows!
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          This will happen as soon as Apple makes it possible to compile Linux-native applications from XCode.

          In order to be able to run apps written for OSX on Linux you'd have to have several proprietary Apple APIs ported there. Not going to happen, and even if it did they'd be closed source.

      • if (they do X on Linux) { Microsoft would be dead in three years;}
        I say with no malice that this is the most naive statement I have read all week, and I follow President Bush's press announcements.
        • The weakest link here is my implied assertion that Adobe porting it's flagship product to Linux would be a catalytic event. And I don't think that's such a naive assertion, and, if it were to happen in the near future it would coincide with Microsoft being at what is arguably a weak point in its history.

          Also, 3 years is multiple development cycles for many major applications.
          • If Adobe were to port its (excellent) studio to Linux, it would be a major event in software. "Catalytic", though?

            Interesting.

            I think Adobe is in the ideal position of being the leader in its field(s), with almost no serious competition. (Apple is trying, Redmond is bumbling.) Only a software maker in that position could afford to port to Linux. For this reason, I don't think we'd see a rush of ported Redmondows applications following such a move by Adobe.

            Linux has arrived on the desktop. Cupertino and Redm
      • I think that Linux needs to get it's shit together for this to ever happen. It's too all over the place, and there are too many distributions for anyone to take it seriously as a mainstream desktop environment. I could see Adobe getting behind one or two distributions and providing support if installed on one of those, but there are too many moving parts in the community. It's too easy for them to say "we can't help you, you must have some custom x in your y causing conflicts" Don't get me wrong, Linux is
      • by jsebrech (525647)
        I would cheerfully pay Adobe for their userland apps that are supported on Linux, opensource or not.

        Maybe you would, but if there were in fact droves of developers waiting to hand over cash to adobe, adobe would be all over that market.

        The reality is that linux users are less likely to pay for software because paid software generally involves non-open source components, and they just don't like that.

        Adobe has no morals or principles, they have a bottom line. If it was profitable to release apps for linux, t
    • Do you mean move as in 'mv' or move as in 'cp'?

      If they no longer had MS products, they would lose a lot of market share.

      But adding Linux could gain some market share. Going open source could gain a lot more.

      In my oppinion the situation is just like it was with Mozilla/Netscape. The product before Open Source was ok, but bloated and buggy enough that I never felt compelled to use it over the alternatives. Within a year of going open source, they had the best product on the market.

      I look at Adobe products - I
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kripkenstein (913150)

      Adobe is putting small pieces on Linux (and other OSS), just when they feel attacked by MS.

      Reality isn't headlines on Slashdot (there goes my karma). Yes, we recently had a story about Microsoft's new supposed "Adobe-killer" technology. But it is extremely doubtful that this is related to Adobe's actions as mentioned in the current story. For one, actions such as this are planned far in advance. Also, ActionScript was already in the process of being open-sourced; Adobe simply see OSS as part of their over

      • And MS's actions are recent? I do not think so. They have been developing it for over a year. Adobe is simply reacting to MS. The fact that they have ported very little to any none (apple|windows) platforms says it all.
      • by e2d2 (115622)
        I wouldn't say it's a reaction to a particular event, but I'm pretty sure that Adobe is trying to use "OPEN SOURCE RAH RAH RAH" chant to try and show how they are so much better than MS, now that MS has released silverlight and is on their home turf.

        Honestly I think Adobe could give two shits about OSS, as they prove when they state that Linux products aren't in the works. They use OSS to compete, gaining market share and driving their stock higher, nothing more. The good thing out of all of this is develop
  • The FAQ is actually here [adobe.com].
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:48AM (#18884663)

    Adobe's action will likely please other open source developers who use Flex, like me, and offers hope that we'll see a full open source version of Flash one day.


    There's a sucker born every minute, isn't there.

    What Adobe has done by throwing an "open source" SDK bone is made it appear like they're leaning toward open-source Flash without actually giving away any of the crown jewels. Adobe's move is very much like the gigabyes of "open source" code samples Microsoft makes available in its extensive MSDN library: you can use and modify them for free, but you still need Microsoft's core (and proprietary) software to make them work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by uss_valiant (760602)
      I think you underestimate the significance of this announcement. True, Adobe isn't open-sourcing Flash. But open-sourcing the Flex (MXML) compiler and SDK is still very important.

      MXML compiles into .swf (which runs in the normal Flash runtime). You won't get open-source Flash runtimes, but the compiled .swf files will be 100% open-source whereas right now, .swf files compiled from MXML still contain statically linked, non-FLOSS components in the same binary as your own (FLOSS) code.

      Also, you'll be abl
      • by mhall119 (1035984)

        MXML compiles into .swf (which runs in the normal Flash runtime). You won't get open-source Flash runtimes, but the compiled .swf files will be 100% open-source whereas right now, .swf files compiled from MXML still contain statically linked, non-FLOSS components in the same binary as your own (FLOSS) code.

        Now that Sun has finally decided to open-source Java, we suddenly have the "Flash Trap". Cue RMS.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) *
      This *is* slightly better than you make it sound, as Adobe is effectively giving away a free development environment. However, this mostly just replaces the open source stuff like MTASC, so it's like it's earth shattering. But it is a step in the right direction. Especially since having a free SDK could save experienced developers thousands of dollars on purchasing Adobe's cruddy IDEs.
      • The SDK for Flex was free. You just had to sign up with Adobe to be able to download it. The IDE for Flex, built on top of Eclipse, is not free and they have no plans to make it so. From what I understand from my coworker, it is nice to work with.
        • Now the SDK is even more Free, being under the MPL. Note, however, that its more than just the Flex framework ActionScript code. This open source project will include the Java source code for the compilers.
    • by gaspyy (514539)

      but you still need Microsoft's core (and proprietary) software to make them work

      Ummm, no.
      It's not just the SDK they are giving away. It's the compiler and debugger too. The only thing that's missing is the IDE, which is Eclipse-based anyway. These guys [powerflasher.com] have made a pretty good Eclipse plugin for editing actionscript classes, so I don't think replicating Flex Builder should be that hard.
      I'm not very fond of Adobe, but this is a very good move. If you haven't tried Flex, you should.

    • Adobe's open source efforts aren't all talk. They have been quite reasonable at shepherding PDF as an open standard. Also, they have recently open-sourced a JIT engine for JavaScript which Mozilla is adopting for Mozilla 2 (and thus, likely, Firefox 4) [mozilla.org]. In addition to better performance, this could result in better compatibility between Flash's ActionScript and Firefox's JavaScript in the future.

      It's true that we'll probably never see open-source Flash from Adobe. But I don't think it's fair to compare
    • by johnnliu (454880)
      In terms of Java or .NET, this is the same as giving you the source code for the framework libraries but withheld the right to the VM to themselves.

      Business as usual, but it does make a splash headline!
    • by jsebrech (525647)
      What Adobe has done by throwing an "open source" SDK bone is made it appear like they're leaning toward open-source Flash without actually giving away any of the crown jewels. Adobe's move is very much like the gigabyes of "open source" code samples Microsoft makes available in its extensive MSDN library: you can use and modify them for free, but you still need Microsoft's core (and proprietary) software to make them work.

      The new situation with flex/flash is no different from the java situation as it existe
  • by stunt_penguin (906223) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:53AM (#18884729)
    Microsoft's only market for Silverlight is some universities and eLearning facilities that are too short sighted to use Flash for multimedia delivery; the only way MS could possibly even put a dent in Flash's ubiquity is if they traveled back in time and made sure that Silverlight something that was installed on every windows machine from Windows 98 onwards.

    Adobe have a massive user base for the Flash plugin (perhaps one of the highest user bases for any software in the world? (barring MS paint).. interesting question) and the application itself, and I don't see Microsoft making a dent in it in any meaningful way- why should Adobe even bother looking over their shoulder when you can ask most users what Flash is and they'll say 'oh it's that thing you need on the interwebs that does ______'.

    Anyway, I've been wanting to make the move to Flex (from hand-coding my XML requests etc) and this is a great chance to do so. Spry integration into Dreamweaver CS3, then open-sourcing Flex? Some moves in the right direction, Adobe :)

    Now, about that XML into After Effects idea I had :p

    *runs off to buy master suite*
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by btSeaPig (701895)
      the only way MS could possibly even put a dent in Flash's ubiquity is if they traveled back in time and made sure that Silverlight something that was installed on every windows machine from Windows 98 onwards

      - or release it as a critical update
    • by blueZhift (652272) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:16AM (#18885115) Homepage Journal
      I think Adobe cares about Silverlight in part because Flash development is still perceived to have a high barrier to entry because of the cost of Flash MX. I myself only became aware of the possibility of using the free Flex SDK to develop Flash apps recently. So in light of Microsoft's announcement, I think Adobe doesn't want those who might be swayed to forget about Flex. Open sourcing Flex is definitely a good move. It should result in some good free tools for Flash development which should help fend off the threat presented by Silverlight. I'm still planning to take a look at Silverlight, but I'll definitely be giving Flex a look too. And I'm sure that Adobe remembers that Netscape thought they had an insurmountable lead back in the day too, and look where they are now... Never underestimate the power of the dark side!
    • by MrCopilot (871878)
      Adobe have a massive user base for the Flash plugin (perhaps one of the highest user bases for any software in the world? (barring MS paint).. interesting question)

      Umm, my linux boxes don't have MSPaint installed but they all have a Flash Plugin, So I guess the edge goes to Flash Plugin.

    • Gossip from inside Microsoft is that the Silverlight project is a death march and people are transferring out of the doomed project team as fast as they can. The same process which led to Vista's vast successes.
  • Free development in Flash has been around for a while. I particularly like working in Haxe [haxe.org].

    To me, I had never been interested in Flash development because the dev environments I saw always seemed semi-hostile to something other than timeline-based animation. With haxe, it's just you and your text editor - the way programming should be.
    • by N8F8 (4562)
      They bought Macromedia (Flash, Dreamweaver, etc.)
    • Well, the thing is that you could potentially create a Flash movie almost from scratch using Actionscript saved in a text (.as) file and loaded into a near-blank .swf file; you've got the power to create objects, control time and load in content. It's just a lot handier when you've got the library sitting there so you can arrange your objects in the GUI and then code their individual behaviours by clicking on them and tapping in the on(release){} events etc. Oh, well, each to their own :)
    • Flex Builder [adobe.com], the main development environment for the Flex SDK we're talking about here, is built on Eclipse [eclipse.org]. Not a timeline in sight. I highly recommend checking it out.
  • by Qbertino (265505) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:17AM (#18885147)
    This is a suprising move indeed, and changes the game for RIAs big time. As of now Flex is right up there with Laszlo and Co. when technical decision-makers talk about RIA generators and compilers. This dimishes the corporate media hype about Silverthingie from MS to a minor sidenote.

    Kudos also to the Laszlo guys and the Motion Twin ActionScript Compiler and all the other projects listed at osflash.org for putting the presure on Adobemedia for the last few years. And Kudos to Sun for leading the way in open sourcing key technologies - I suspect that played a major role in this decision. And thanks to Adobe for scaring the living wee-wee out of Microsoft's Web Division. I can just imagine the look on their faces. Hehe.

    Oh, and last but not least, to all the idiots here on slashdot allready ranting about Flash, Flex, Laszlo, RIAs and whatnot: Shut the f*ck up, you don't know squat what you're talking about.
    • Er who was ranting about those things exactly? Or are you just trying to reinforce the impression that you're very knowledgable on the subject?
      • by Qbertino (265505)
        It was the seventh post or so and the preceeding 5 or 6 where rants and trolling about Flash, Flex, etc. It was way above the ususal ratio, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents to that aswell.
        • by Raenex (947668)
          Trolling about Flash? So tell me, forget open sourcing the Flash plugin, how about just making the spec freely available?
    • Uh.. buddy? This is where you find people who do know what they are talking about.
      well, at least, you can tell when there is actual information in the post. What pressure? Why? "wee-wee"?
      C'mon, first cup of coffee? :) Cheers,
      TCPF
    • Kudos also to the Laszlo guys and the Motion Twin ActionScript Compiler and all the other projects listed at osflash.org for putting the presure on Adobemedia for the last few years.

      It's not Adobemedia, it's Macrobe. Funnier that way.

  • http://flex.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

    Adobe should concentrate on opening sourcing something of worth instead of reinventing the wheel. ;)
  • I checked the website, and Flex seems to be a bundle of different packages. The retail is over $700. Is that what they are open sourcing or just the SDK? Bottom line, can you use it without the 700 package? Kinda like how you can download the .Net framework and write apps without needing Visual Studio
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by colanut (541823)
      Yes, you can hand write the ActionScrpt/Flex in a text editor and use the free SDK to command line compile the .swf file to be included in your web page. As long as you know the language and syntax.

      The $700 package is a ide that has the compiler, debugger and a graphical design window to help you out.
    • by davemc (16393)
      Check out this video clip from Scoble talking with the Flex team, It's prety clear what you get.

      http://www.podtech.net/home/podtech/2827/the-archi tecture-of-flash [podtech.net]
  • Right now their new product is not taking off fast enough and they are trying to head Microsoft off. They've got a more profitable product in Flash and it's their product as opposed to this project they inherited from Macromedia.

    This is the last step before they abandon it. Which they won't do right away. First some exec that came over from Macromedia and forcing the project through will resign. Then a couple of months later the updates will stop.

    As someone who has witnessed their business people in act
    • Actually, adoption has been very strong, and Adobe is using Flex for many, many projects internally (according to company insiders ;)). Once Adobe acquired Macromedia, Flex moved high up on the priority list, and its a big part of the company roadmap.
      • Actually, adoption has been very strong, and Adobe is using Flex for many, many projects internally (according to company insiders ;))

        This statement is standard corporate pablum used to make something sound like it's the latest and greatest when there's nothing else to say about it. They will probably announce a number of well-known corporate brands "adopting" it to try to build some influence too.

        This is all very typical media build-up based on half-truths to get something going. Blindly adopting Adobe's
        • by petsounds (593538)
          It sounds more like you just *want* to believe that Flex is failing.

          Flex is starting to become a de facto for "web 2.0" apps that require a richer experience than can be provided by HTML alone.
          Yes, the framework has its share of problems. It is great for MXML-based forms apps, but doing more complex apps with custom components and heavy use of Actionscript can be a headache. I know from personal experience because I'm working on such a beast. However, the benefits that it provides in terms of data services
  • by rodentia (102779) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:55PM (#18886943)

    There are eight ways to Sunday for solving the last mile problem for software (the presentation tier) in a robust fashion. For all but the most trivial of applications, this solution is more trouble than it's worth. Unlike the last mile of the network, the target is not a fixed location.

    The shrewd architect knows that there is always a rewrite. A dependency like this at the presentation layer is a liability. Whether interpreter is proprietary or not has little impact on these costs.

  • by jdavidb (449077) * on Thursday April 26, 2007 @02:29PM (#18888493) Homepage Journal

    The only way to really utilize open source flex is if we could get an open source bison.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Flex has always been open source.

    http://flex.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

    I don't know what Adobe's product is, but it is not Flex.

New systems generate new problems.

Working...