Yeah, long file names like that are very unappealing. We need to try to avoid that situation.
- Josh On Apr 22, 2016 11:40 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 4/21/16, 1:27 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > >When creating maven artifacts from SDKs we had a different naming, which > >I find a little more intuitive. > >Applied to FlexJS instead of Flex, this would be: > > > >FlexJS Compiler: Falcon, FalconJX > >FlexJS Framework: ASJS > >FlexJS Externs: Externs > > > >How about this .. but I agree in the part where you call call Falcon > >something FlexJS ;-) > > Seems ok to me. The true official full name has to start with Apache > though: "Apache FlexJS Compiler". I don't know if you can leave "apache" > off the artifact names. > > Related to this, I noticed in the Maven builds, the SWCs are getting > longer names as well. So what we've been referring to as "js.swc" is now > "flexjs-externs-js-0.6.0.swc" and may have to be called > "apache-flexjs-externs-js-0.6.0.swc". I guess I can see how that might be > important for Maven, but I'm just wondering about having to use the longer > name in the documentation and other places like the IDE library path > dialogs. Maybe the Ant builds and IDE installers should go with shorter > names? > > Thoughts? > -Alex > >
