Hi Alex,
all I’m currently concerned about is that it will be painfull for our users.
And for us, because as soon as no-brain-developers will start using FlexJS, we
will probably be swamped with support requests. And I remember myself being
quite confused about it even now … so I usually try to build and if there’s
errors I’ll add the second option an try again.
I would definitely not enjoy having to deal with three SWCs per library.
Ideally we would have only one (That would actually make me
super-duper-ultra-happy). It would ease up explaining things, it would make the
Maven plugin a lot simpler and I guess it would reduce frustration with early
adopters.
If there’s anything I can do to make this happen, just tell me what to do.
Chris
Am 02.02.17, 17:38 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
There are already two lib folders (actually three). Today we have:
Frameworks/libs: XXX.SWC contains:
-Flash-based Class Definitions
-JS files for JS compiles
Frameworks/js/FlexJS/libs: XXXJS.SWC contains:
-JS.swc-based Class Definitions
Js/libs: SWC contains
-JS.swc-based Class Definitinons from flex-typedefs
-JS files for externs
Before I consider this "dual" thing done, I was going to change things so
there is a copy of the JS files in the XXXJS.swc. AIUI, Maven has two
categories of SWCs: externs and regular, so you can see by packing JS
files in the XXXJS.swc it will have the same sort of contents.
I have not worked with ANEs, but AIUI, there is one API definition and
multiple platform object codes. For FlexJS SWCs there are different API
definitions per platform. IMO, by packing JS files in the SWC we are
doing something like what ANE packaging does. The JS is effectively the
platform object code. But all existing IDEs expect only a single
library.swf for the API definitions. We can change that, but then every
IDE would have to change. IMO, backward-compatibility is still important,
not just for FB. We could still have two SWCs per library and still
package a js-library.swf into the SWF SWC if that makes VSCode work
better. We could also make the compiler guess that if there is a XXX.SWC
to first look for a XXXJS.SWC in another folder. That would be far
simpler, IMO.
Could we create a third SWC with only the definitions in common?
Probably, but IMO, not critical right now (or at least, that's not what I
want to do with my time). The dual compile will effectively show you
what is common, and I hope we can add documentation to mark what is common.
I think there are two pieces here:
-Will it be to painful to require third parties to ship two SWCs per
library?
-Can we make it so that if you specify XXX.SWC on the library path, you
don't also have to specify XXXJS.SWC in the config?
I think we can make the compilers make some assumptions so that if there
are two SWCs per library the consumer only has to think about one. But
for backward compatibility, I'd say we still need two SWCs per library.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 2/2/17, 3:10 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>I think self contain is better too. For example Adobe AIR does the same
>with Multiplatform ANEs. If the ANE is implemented for iOS, Android, and
>more,...all goes in the same .ane and I think that's really good, since
>the
>library is in fact Multiplatform and ready to use for anyone in anyplace
>:)
>
>2017-02-02 10:46 GMT+01:00 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
>> Would it be somehow possible to make the swcs self-contained?
>> Right now they contain catalog.xml and library.swf … couldn’t this
>>contain
>> something like a “catalog-js.xml” and a “library-js.swf” … this way we
>> could just add a dependency to a SWC and the compiler could internally
>>grab
>> what he needs. This would the the option which I would prefer most …
>>sort
>> of 1000000000+ ;-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Am 02.02.17, 10:27 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> So there would be two different lib folders? One for swf compilation
>> and another for js compilation? Maybe a third lib folder for “dual”
>> compilation?
>>
>> Here’s a thought: Would it be possible to create a “dual” swc which
>> would contain the definitions for both JS and SWF? And have falcon
>> understand how to read the correct one depending on the output?
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/1/17, 1:41 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One question: How do you envision swc for third party libraries
>>if
>> both
>> >> JS and SWF swcs are being used?
>> >>
>> >> Is this strictly an SDK thing or would there be some mechanism
>>for
>> having
>> >> split swcs for libs as well?
>> >
>> > I think third-parties will also have to distribute two SWCs if
>>there
>> are
>> > differences in the API surfaces. If you have a high-level library
>> that
>> > just talks to downstream libraries and has no COMPILE:: blocks you
>> > probably only need the one SWC.
>> >
>> > Is this an ok thing to do to our customers?
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>Carlos Rovira
>Director General
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>http://www.codeoscopic.com
>http://www.avant2.es
>
>Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
>información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
>error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
>proceda a su destrucción.
>
>De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
>comunicamos
>que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
>S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
>servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
>rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
>nuestras
>oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
>necesaria.
