So in theory, the SWF compiler in flex-falcon/compiler, the Flash Builder integration jar in flex-falcon/flex-oem-compiler, and the FDB debugger in flex-falcon/debugger will some day replace MXMLC and its FDB for compiling future Flex (as well as FlexJS) SWFs.
Then we have the cross-compiler or transpolar in flex-falcon/compiler.jx And we have a bunch of swcs in flex-falcon/externs. These SWCs map to existing JS frameworks Over in flex-asjs, we have even more swcs that depend on the swcs in flex-falcon/externs. These SWCs form a framework similar to the Flex SDK (MXML support, for example). We've been using FlexJS as the name for this Flex SDK-like SDK for JS, but not so much for the compiler. So, I'm not sure that flexjs should be in the coordinates for Falcon since it isn't dedicated to just FlexJS, but I'm definitely open to better naming. Thoughts? -Alex On 2/20/16, 7:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Hi, > > >while I see an actual chance to have Falcon built with maven and hereby >producing Maven artifacts, I think we should discuss the coordinates >these artifacts are created under. > > >Currently I was using "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler" while >the normal compiler was "org.apache.flex.compiler:compiler". > > >We currently have a framework called "FlexJS"/"AsJS" (actually I don't >really know the name ;-) ) > >We have a compiler Falcon and FalconJX (Don't quite know what the last >part really is) > > >Anyway ... we are usually talking about "FlexJS" and referring to the new >compiler and the framework. > > >My proposal would be to publish all under: > >org.apache.flex.flexjs:compiler > >and: > >org.apache.flex.flexjs:framework > > >I think if we throw in all these codenames we really confuse people. If >we just say "FlexJS framework is built by the FlexJS compiler" this is a >lot simpler. I guess if we tell people ... "Yeah, our flexjs compiler can >also compile flex applictions" noone will be ok with that. > > >What do you think? > > >Chris
