Sounds ok to me. On 9/21/14 8:30 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Ok ... so: > >- AIR SDK: Is taken care of by Flexmojos with embedded Mavenizer >- PlayerGlobal: Is taken care of by Flexmojos with embedded Mavenizer >- BlazeDS: We could takte care of this by releaseing BlazeDS >- Embedded Fonts: Is NOT taken care of currently but I would implement >this similarly to AIR and PlayerGlobal in Flexmojos >- Osmf: MPL Licensed, but not published to Maven Central >- SWFObject: Is already released and available via Maven: >http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/webjars/swfobject/2.2/s >wfobject-2.2.jar > >So would you be ok with me implementing something similar to AIR and >PlayerGlobal download for Font Embedding in Flexmojos, we start using the >SWFObject deployed to MavenCentral and we leave out OSMF from the flex >core pom (So if someone adds a dependency to >"org.apache.flex:framework:{version}:pom" this is no longer automatically >added and if someone needs it he has to manually add a dependency to it? >If it's really only two classes needed for parsing the settings for amf & >co, working around this by somehow including those classes directly >should have us in a state in which I could write the Ant script to have >SNAPSHOTS deployed and we could start releasing Flex as Maven artifacts. > >What do you think? Would this be something we could live with? > >Chris > > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. September 2014 16:18 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: AW: AW: List of dependencies > >I believe (needs proving) that everything in the list is optional from a >build perspective. > >-AIR SDK: Required for IDEs. Required for Mobile and Desktop. Not >required for Browser apps. >-PlayerGlobal: Required for IDEs. Required for Browser apps. Not >required for Mobile and Desktop. >-BlazeDS: Required for any app that uses services-config.xml. >-Embedded Fonts: Required for apps that embed fonts. >-OSMF: Required for apps that use Spark video (but not MX video). >-SWFObject: Required for IDEs. Required for Browser apps. Not required >for Mobile and Desktop. > > >HTH, >-Alex > > >On 9/21/14 2:43 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > >>And what about osmf? >> >>I think I have never ever actually used it. Could it be possible that >>for a maven release of flex having osmf included isn't a requirement? >>Would it be a valid approach to have people add a depdencency to osmf >>only if they actually want to use it? >> >>So in this case adding: >> >><dependency> >> <groupId>com.adobe.osmf</groupId> >> <artifactId>osmf</artifactId> >> <version>2.0</version> >> <type>swc</type> >></dependency> >> >>Would deal with it. What exactly is SWFObject needed for? Would it be >>valid to have it omitted from an official Flex Maven release? In this >>case I think simply documenting what you need to do to enable different >>features sounds a better approach than bundling other projects with ours. >>Currently we already have different parts of flex separate, why not >>these too? >> >>I'm just asking this because I was thinking about adding my >>maven-deploy-ant stuff to the flex-sdk and hereby have nightly-build >>SNAPSHOT versions generated automatically. >> >>Chris >> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: Christofer Dutz [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] >>Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. September 2014 10:55 >>An: dev@flex.apache.org >>Betreff: AW: AW: List of dependencies >> >>And am I correct, that you only need the Embedded Fonts if you are >>actually embedding fonts. Flex would work fine without those 4 libs if >>you don't use the font encoding? >> >>Its just that I don't want to proceed in a direction that would make us >>release stuff that can't work on ist own. >> >>I would also have to have a look how to add something to the plugin >>classpath as playerglobal and airglobal are added to the application >>classpath and the font-embedding needs to go to the plugins classpath. >> >> >>Chris >> >> >> >> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >>Gesendet: Samstag, 20. September 2014 16:15 >>An: dev@flex.apache.org >>Betreff: Re: AW: List of dependencies >> >>Hi Chris, >> >>OK, so the jars you are interested in aren't in Maven Central. The >>Adobe stuff in Maven Central appears to have open licenses. >> >>The installer shows you the sets of external dependencies (from memory): >>AIR SDK, PlayerGlobal, BlazeDS, Embedded Fonts, OSMF, SWFObject. >> >>SWFObject is under MIT so we probably don't really need to ask folks >>about it, and we could bundle it in the future. >>OSMF is under MPL so I don't think Adobe cares that folks accept its >>license. >>BlazeDS is under MPL, as well. In future Apache Flex releases, this >>will no longer be an external dependency. I'm pretty sure the compiler >>only uses one or two classes from one BlazeDS jar. We don't even >>really need to release BlazeDS to remove this dependency, we could >>change our build script to pull those two classes. >>Embedded Fonts is under Adobe license so it needs to be treated like >>AIR SDK and PlayerGlobal. It is four jars, and you only truly need to >>ask once for the set of four, not for each one. >> >>HTH, >>-Alex >> >> >>On 9/20/14 1:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >> >>>Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I >>>hate this discussion fragmentation) >>> >>>I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air >>>artifacts, but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about >>>one font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was >>>an assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often >>>and I was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo >>>deployed back in the old days when he still did that. >>> >>>From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from >>>Adobe and Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the >>>stuff. At first I was thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air >>>artifacts at Sonatype and us releasing our stuff at Apache with both >>>ending up in Maven central. But Sonatype explained that the permit had >>>expired and Adobe didn't want to renew it. So that door is closed. >>> >>>I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after >>>Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal >>>and the feature seems to be working nicely. >>> >>>Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open >>>repo: >>>https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compi >>>l >>>er~ >>>afe~~~ >>>Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash >>>so I was thinking about referencing this artifact for example: >>>https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/conten >>>t /co m/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar >>> >>>My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and >>>airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I >>>doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling >>>the same way. I would become more and more a hack. >>> >>>Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we >>>still rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start >>>finding solutions to where to get them from or how to make the >>>build-system cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check >>>if afe is present only if font encoding is being used in the project >>>and eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this >>>for every external and optional dependency. >>> >>>Chris >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________________ >>>Von: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash >>>Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39 >>>An: dev@flex.apache.org >>>Betreff: Re: List of dependencies >>> >>>On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Om, >>>> >>>> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find >>>>them with the search facility. Can you post the URLs? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> >>>Here is what I found: >>> >>>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe >>>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos >>> >>>Chris can probably give you the correct list. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Om >>> >>> >>>> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, >>>> >> >what is >>>> >>the >>>> >> >best way to move forward? >>>> >> > >>>> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good >>>> >> >enough >>>>for >>>> >>us, >>>> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe? >>>> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I >>>> >> asked >>>>Adobe >>>> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the >>>> >> Adobe >>>>EULA >>>> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The >>>>sense >>>> >>I >>>> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there >>>> >>are under open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven >>>> >>extension to do that. >>>> >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask >>>> >>Adobe Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded >>>> >>without explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me >>>> >>to remove >>>>all >>>> >>of >>>> >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they >>>> >are today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license >>>>agreement UI >>>> >action. >>>> > >>>> >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on >>>>Maven, >>>> >>so >>>> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am >>>>guessing. >>>> >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. >>>>If >>>> >>I >>>> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >Fair enough :-) >>>> > >>>> >Thanks, >>>> >Om >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> -Alex >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >
