Hi guys,
I’d love to see basic go away. I already excluded it from the maven
distribution to avoid problems in IntelliJ.
Didn’t see that “question 3” … what would these two swcs be? I am asking
because Maven has the concept of one primary artifact per module. We are
currently producing one main artifact and an additional artifact using a
classifier, but what are you talking about in this case?
I also don’t know what “AUTO” is …
Chris
Am 01.02.17, 11:22 schrieb "carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von Carlos
Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com im Auftrag von carlosrov...@apache.org>:
HI Alex,
2017-01-31 18:41 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>:
> OK, I have something working. It is in the "dual" branch I just pushed.
>
great :)
> But there is a catch: MXMLJSC requires Java 7 or greater and Flash
> Builder is packaged with Java 6. So, in order to use this capability from
> FB, you will need to upgrade FB to use Java 7 as in this post [1]. So
> that's the first question: Would we want to require folks to upgrade FB
> to Java 7? I don't think we can script the upgrade to automate it for
> people as there are permissions issues in the process. But currently, I
> think it is worth it, since that means you don't have to use separate
> launch scripts to run the JS compile, although I think it is possible to
> have a way to fall back to the current mechanism of SWF-only compilation
> and use the separate launch script if folks can't upgrade.
>
>
IMHO, for FlexJS that is new tech we should not be looking at FB anymore.
I understand it for old Flex SDK, legacy SDK goes with legacy IDE....is
right for me
But considering FlexJS, please we should concentrate on newer options begin
developed
with FlexJS...
So that's question #2: Can I start replacing HTML with Basic?
>
>
I think yes, and I want to suggest something here. I created some basic
HTML tags (span, a, div, h1,...)
I think we should separate that tags for normal SDK components like
js:Container, js:Button...
those tags are the most basic structures, and FlexJS component is somewhat
the immediate next level.
In cases like MDL, I could depend it only from basic tags and not from
FlexJS component.
Both avoiding actual confusion of user trying to use both a the time and
better structuring and removing things
People will Neve use (or should never use). And if they want it...PAYG and
introduce it in your build and your code.
Makes that sense?
> question #3: Any objections to moving from one SWC per library to two?
>
>
It seems ok to me at all. And this should remove weight as well removing
dependencies that are not used never in the end
> Any objections to supporting "AUTO" as a special value?
>
>
Here can't help since don't know exactly what's what Fred did
Thanks!
Carlos
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
