On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Om, > > I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM to update > pages with real info. > could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in NPM? > I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming? > > Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll need more time > to get Royale on NPM > > Thanks! > I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the first release of royale. Does that work? Thanks, Om > > > 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>: > > > I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing people. If > I > > came to this project for the first time, and try to search in npm, and > find > > "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll be ask me if > > there's the right one. > > > > With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;) > > > > 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > > > >> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name. > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > 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 < > >> bigosma...@gmail.com> > >> > 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 > <aha...@adobe.com.invalid > >> > > >> > > 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, "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%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a > >> > >> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b > >> > >>> 34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881& > >> > >> sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0 > >> > >>> t4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Carlos Rovira > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Director General > >> > >>> > >> > >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <http://www.codeoscopic.com> > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > Director General > > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005> > > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > > > > Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira >
