Hi Alex, I agree with most of your thoughts, but my intention was to make it simpler for people to get started, having to know all of the history just in order to know which artifacts to get doesn't make things easier.
I guess the best thing would have been, if we didn't change the groupIds and artifactIds of the parts. Currently this would be "org.apache.flex:compiler" and "org.apache.flex:framework" but if we started with 1.0, this would really mess up things. As we would have collisions starting with the first release version of Apache Flex. Besides explaining why the newest version starts at 1.0 again just sounds silly. Another option would be to call the thing Flex 5.0 ... this would probably be the simplest solution for all. And the major version update justifies breaking compatibility. And just as a side info ... I think Maven doesn't like things such as "2.0" in the groupId. Chris ________________________________________ Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016 07:30 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [Discuss] Naming of Falcon/FlexJS artifacts 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 >
