It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on npm. I would vote for two packages:
1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and future targets when/if we add them): npm install apache-royale -g 2. To install js-only: npm install apache-royale-js -g If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler only), we can add them as additional packages later. Harbs > On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org. The package usually > contains the code we want others to use. It also contains a "package.json" > file which specify all its dependencies. These dependencies (and their > sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as part of "npm > install". > > There are options to run custom scripts before and after the npm install. > In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that simply downloads our > non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash player, air, etc.) and > puts them in the correct places. > > So, our options are: > > 1. Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly and js+swf. We > need to figure out the names of these packages, since they are unique > identifiers on npmjs's registry. > > Then the command the users would run would look like: > npm install royale-jsonly -g > npm install royale-js-and-swf -g > > 2. Publish only the jsonly package. > Then the command the users would run would look like: > npm install royale-jsonly -g > > 3. Possibly, we can figure out a way to optionally download swf support. > This way, by default the jsonly is downoaded and unzipped. Then we could > (possibly) look at the args or have the user run another command that > downloads the swf support. > > Then the command the users would run would (possibly) look like: > npm install royale -- -include-swf-support -g > > (or) > npm install royale-jsonly -g > and then > ./update-royale-include-swf-support > > In all three cases, we can definitely run a script that alters xml configs, > etc. to suit our needs. > > Hope that helps. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> 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: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of OmPrakash >>>> Muppirala <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:21:37 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Publishing royale to npm >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Harbs <[email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> >>>>> 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%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a >> 81b0%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%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a >> 81b0%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%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a >> 81b0%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. >> >>
