OK. You’re probably right.
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:34 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
>>> 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 <[email protected]
>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs <[email protected]>
>> 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 <
>>>>>> [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 <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
>>>>
>>
>>
