On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Can you remind me what the issues are with npm and nightly builds? IOW, I
> would think we would want to automate the generation of the HPM release so
> it can go out with the regular Apache release artifacts and be tested as
> an RC by release voters.
>
>
I don't think there is any issue. Those who want to test out the nightly
via npm, need to a few special steps before they run npm install. Josh
added that functionality a while ago.
We are talking about the official release so we can push the package out to
the npm registry.
We could also publish alpha/beta releases to npm as well.
> We already need to synchronize the generation and deployment of Maven
> artifacts as well as the Ant/IDE artifacts. Can we add NPM as well?
>
Yes, we should be able to incorporate an npm publish command into our
release scripts. Do you know at what point in the whole release process we
will be able to update npm?
If we dont change the installation steps, we would need the following
pieces in the package.json file:
"org_apache_flex": {
"flexjs_path_binary": "flex/flexjs/0.8.0/binaries/",
"flexjs_file_name": "apache-flex-flexjs-0.8.0-bin.zip",
"falcon_path_binary": "flex/falcon/0.8.0/binaries/",
"falcon_file_name": "apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-bin.zip",
"flash_player_global_url": "
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/25/";,
"flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
"adobe_air_url": "http://airdownload.adobe.com/air/win/download/25.0/";,
"adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
"player_version": "25.0",
"swf_version": "36",
"swf_object_url": "http://github.com/swfobject/swfobject/archive/";,
"swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
"flatui_url": "https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/archive/";,
"flatui_file_name": "2.2.2.zip"
}
Then, we up the version number and do a npm publish. The release manager
would need to have the credentials for npmjs.org, but we could share that
with priv...@royale.apache.org
Thanks,
Om
>
> -Alex
>
> On 11/9/17, 1:28 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >OK. You’re probably right.
> >
> >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:34 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .
> >>>>>>codeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> d535%7C
> >>>>>>fa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%
> >>>>>>2BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%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.c
> >>>>>>odeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> d535%7Cf
> >>>>>>a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%2
> >>>>>>BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fava
> >>>>>>nt2.es%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> d535%
> >>>>>>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636458597162582230&sdata
> >>>>>>=Il0uAApioVX8s%2FGpLF6I7n3Z9RVE6lr%2F2DRXoDPhY7M%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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>
> >>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout
> .
> >>>>>me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> d535%7
> >>>>>Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=9
> >>>>>%2FYyqi%2BYg77E%2FcoGt9naXIx24oJV3uK2fwbRB7Ef1Ec%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
