On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> If someone wants to make these changes, I won’t object, but IMO, Google > Closure Library changes often, usually for the better. Bundling will tie > a FlexJS release to a particular version of GCL and that may not always be > desirable at this point. >From what I have seen, GCL is used behind the scenes by the FlexJS compiler, i.e. there is no way for the user to do anything directly with GCL. I am not sure what advantage we get by getting the latest GCL library all the time. I believe tying a FlexJS release to a particular version of GCL is a good thing. > I believe we have the option of changing the > installer so it downloads GCL without asking for license approval as well. > > That does not solve the problem of the FlexJS installation failing. The GCL download step can still fail, which seems to be happening a lot. Thanks, Om > -Alex > > On 7/30/15, 4:26 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> > wrote: > > >+1 > > > >-Mark > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:40 PM > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >Subject: Re: [FlexJS] FlexJS installation - bundle Google Closure Library? > > > >Hi, > > > >> Since Google Closure Library is also Apache licensed, can we package it > >> with the binary release instead of having the Installer download it > >> separately? > > > >+1 and also any other MIT or BSD licensed stuff. Mean will have to make > >some minor mods to NOTICE/LICENSE but it's straight forward. > > > >Justin > >
