I wrote about the future of SproutCore 1.x here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/323974/...

caycep · on Dec 8, 2011

hm, so does this mean a fork into 2 different development environments?

i.e.: sproutcore.js/blossom - "desktoppy" MVC framework with HTML5/js as a display layer

amber.js - "web-appy" MVC framework with HTML5/js as a display layer?

*edit:

wycats · on Dec 8, 2011

"Blossom will use the GPLv3 license, with commercial licensing similar to the Sencha model."

I don't have a clear idea about what's going on in the SproutCore community, but I don't think this has universal support.

One of the reasons we rebranded to Amber is that our codebase is inspired by SproutCore 1, but it is a complete rewrite, targeting a smaller file size and web-centric development.

All of the fragments of SproutCore 1.x target native-style applications with a ton of JavaScript, while Amber targets ambitious web-style applications using HTML and CSS for the presentation layer. Amber apps don't have much in common with SproutCore 1 (or "blossom") apps, so a clean naming break felt like a clarifying thing to do.

erichocean · on Dec 8, 2011

Blossom is a commercial product, it's not part of the proposed SproutCore.js path forward for SproutCore 1.x.

It is, however, API-compatible with the MIT-licensed view layer (called "Classic") in SproutCore.js.

See the paper for more details.

Joeri · on Dec 8, 2011

It's ironic that both sproutcore and extjs fell prey to version fragmentation in the community because they tried to do too much too fast. I'm stuck on ExtJS 3.4 waiting for the 4.x line to mature to the point where it isn't half as slow and twice as buggy as 3.x.