Did you reserve the name yet?
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
