More thoughts: Falcon was actually never intended to be the product name for the compiler. Adobe teams often used code-names for the code. Adobe released flex-falcon/compiler as ASC2.0.
We could call flex-falcon/compiler MXMLC2.0 since we completed the MXML support (or at least, lots of it) once the code base came to Apache. My only problem with that is that flex-falcon/compiler can also just compile AS -> SWF and calling it MXMLC doesn't really imply that, and we can't have a product called ASC2.0. There is an Apache TLP called Falcon, so getting rid of Falcon in the name might be a good thing. The 2.0 was meant to denote that the compiler was a "next-generation" compiler. We could use "NG" or ' (prime) or something like that. So given all that, one proposal would be: MXMLC2.0 flex-falcon/compiler flex-falcon/debugger flex-falcon/flex-oem-compiler MXMLJSC2.0/ASJSC2.0 flex-falcon/compiler.jx ASJS Framework flex-falcon/externs/js/out/js.swc flex-falcon/externs/jquery/out/jquery.swc ... FlexJS Framework flex-asjs/frameworks/libs/*.swc FlexJS SDK Bundles all of the above. I'm not quite sure how that maps to Maven, but could we then use: MXMLC2.0 org.apache.flex.compiler.2.0:compiler MXMLJSC2.0 org.apache.flex.compiler.2.0:js-compiler ASJS org.apache.flex.asjs: FlexJS org.apache.flex.flexjs: Thoughts? -Alex On 2/20/16, 8:52 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >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 >
