Agreed. If we can get rid of the dependencies, let’s do so. On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simplifying the dependencies is always a good thing :-) > This way we might even find out what's still missing a lot easier and make > sure those gaps are closed soon. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Alex Harui <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 07:46 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: [FalconJX] Does it need the "legacy" compiler? > > Hi, > > If you’ve been following the release discussions, Justin pointed out that > because FalconJX currently bundles the MXMLC compiler and friends from the > main Flex SDK, the NOTICE and LICENSE files need to contain the > appropriate information about MXMLC and its friends. > > The Falcon compiler has always created an “SDK” containing both the Falcon > compiler and the MXMLC compiler. I think that may be so folks could fall > back to MXMLC if Falcon wasn’t working, but I also think that it was > because Falcon didn’t have some of the “friends” like swfdump (Falcon has > one, but I don’t think it works as well), optimizer, copylocale, > swcdepends, etc. > > Falcon and FalconJX still have plenty of bugs, but I have not used MXMLC > or its friends on FlexJS code in quite some time, except for swfdump, and > I just use the one from a regular Flex SDK. > > So, I’m thinking of not bundling MXMLC with FalconJX. FalconJX has it own > FDB already. It won’t completely eliminate our dependencies on the > regular Flex SDK, but will go a long way towards simplifying the > dependencies. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > >
