On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you reserve the name yet? > No I did not. If we are going to be using apache-royale as the package name, we should be fine. Unless you are worried someone else might claim it? > > > 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 > >> > >
