Om, Can you explain to us what our options are? Essentially, the JS-only package will be a subset of a package that can output both SWF and JS and will probably have slightly different default settings in, for example, a frameworks/royale-config.xml file.
It is looking like we can create a zip package for JS-only that will work in Moonshine and VSCode, but to fully make it work in Flash Builder (and maybe some other IDEs) you will need to run a script of some sort that fixes up some FB launch configurations that convert Flex projects to Royale projects. The current plan for a "FlexJS" package that has SWF support (for users that want use SWF for testing or as a migration step) will require that users unzip a package and run an Ant script to bring down Adobe dependencies. I'm thinking we won't use the Flex installer. I'm still working through why one of our users isn't getting code completion working in FB and the answer there may affect packaging as well. I don't know NPM well enough to have an opinion on, if we distribute two packages (flexjs-with-swf-support and js-only), whether NPM allows us to have two different packages or whether it is better to structure NPM releases as js-only package and a swf-support-add-on package. I also don't know if the NPM install should run a script that fixes up those launch configs. Maybe it is better to continue to leave them as "FB users have to run this additional Ant script" or something like that. I'm not sure how important FB still is to our ease-of-migration story. Maybe showing us what folks would have to type on the command line might help us form opinions. Thoughts? -Alex On 10/30/17, 4:36 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: >Hi Om, > >I think that would be great! > >If we end having multiple products as Alex suggested, I think we should >have as well multiple NPM installs. >So for me is ok to sync products we deliver with NPM installations flavors > >Thanks > > > >2017-10-30 10:58 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > >> You’re likely to do most of the maintenance work, so it’s up to you… As >> far as users go there are some users writing client code in AIR and >>server >> code in node (in fact I’m involved in such a project right now). So I >> wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> on behalf of OmPrakash >> Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:21:37 AM >> To: dev@royale.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Publishing royale to npm >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Why not publish both versions? >> > >> >> It looks like the js only is going to be just a zip file. That makes >>for >> easy maintenance. >> The swf version has a bunch of dependencies to be downloaded. >> >> Not a big deal, just thinking out loud if we really need to publish two >> different packages that might lead to confusion. >> >> I'm open to both, though. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> >> > >> > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:15 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala < >> bigosma...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > I was wondering if we should publish the apache.royale-jsonly verson >> via >> > > npm instead of the full version with swf support. >> > > After all, users coming in vial npm would most likely not expect swf >> > > support. >> > > >> > > Any thoughts on this proposal? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Om >> > >> > >> > > > >-- > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0 >t4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0> > >Carlos Rovira > >Director General > >M: +34 607 22 60 05 > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3 >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0t >4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0 > > >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&sdata=JK22xVqobAGGnZ >b8laWESXHS3NA5nLdscBYTEHml7Pk%3D&reserved=0> > > >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.
