Instead of replying individually to all of these posts, let me see if I can summarize my thoughts here:
For sure, we should try Maven. I think the main questions, since there’s been so much emphasis lately on making it easier for new contributors to contribute are: 1) I think it will take weeks or months to fully Mavenize FlexJS. If we are willing to use “convention” over “configuration” I can probably use Ant to make things much more foolproof in a few days. Is it worth it, or should we just wait? 2) Maybe the day will come where we don’t need Ant anymore, but again, since lowering the barrier for new contributors is so important, should we require a tool like Maven that we all have to take a training course in to use? Right now, I don’t think we should lock into a particular build system. What if the next new committers prefer some third system besides Ant and Maven? This seems like one of those “itch” things. Folks who want to have a particular build system work with Flex are free to make it happen. I will help with refactoring things if needed. Now some specific responses: On 11/15/15, 8:52 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote: > >We could add that to the binary release but not the source release, you >can’t have jars in a source release. Do you see any conflicts with ASF policy if our Maven scripts bring down Adobe artifacts? > >Previous version of OS X had it installed, but for Mavericks it not, and >it come with java in Lion, but It’s easy enough to install using homebrew >on OS X via 'brew install maven”. Apparently, I don’t have brew installed. The suggestion to use brew is what made me think we shouldn’t mandate any build system, not even Ant. The next committer might make all of Flex and/or FlexJS installable via brew, or npm, or something else. On 11/14/15, 1:51 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > >First ... I would deffinitely call playerglobal and airglobal (and >whatother swf/swc is needed) NOT a build tool ... they actually do >nothing themselves. They are totally as "library" as you can get. I agree that a SWC is a “library”, but these libraries describe the runtime, and airglobal is most certainly packaged as an SDK (with other tools that do build things). I don’t know how a JDK is packaged, but I would think the fundamental Java classes are packaged as a library in the JDK but not shipped (since they ship with the runtime). Anyway, that was the ruling we got, otherwise we could never have become a top-level project at Apache. > >The funny thing is, that exactly this >interactive-guide-the-user-through-the-process-thing is what YOU made me >implement for the maven-sdk-converter ;-) Let’s be clear. I am not Adobe. I am an employee of Adobe, but I am not the one making you find a way to get Maven to interact with the user. If I were to disappear right now, some other person at Adobe would be making sure that folks are aware that the Adobe artifacts are not under an open license like just about everything else that Maven handles. Finally, one more thing about Ant. Ant is integrated to some degree with Flash Builder. The MXMLC and Falcon compilers both have Ant flex-tasks jars that I think people use. The Ant build scripts exercise that Ant tasks code. To fully replace Ant, we might need to make sure we catch any breakage in that area. Anyway, I hope some folks do get started on the Maven stuff. I’m only going to work on an Ant script to setup the Adobe stuff if folks think that’s a good idea. Thoughts? -Alex
