If you call it 0.10.0, I think it’s pretty clear.
> On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ngra...@idylog.com>
> wrote:
>
> In developer's eyes, "0.10" is "lower" than "0.9".
>
> You'd better number it as "0.91".
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
>> Envoyé : dimanche 12 novembre 2017 10:15
>> À : dev@royale.apache.org
>> Objet : Re: Publishing royale to npm
>>
>> We’ve fixed a lot of things since 0.8.
>>
>> 0.9 does not need to jump to 1.0. We can have 0.10 (and 0.11…)
>>
>> I’d really like to streamline the release process so it’s painless
>> enough to release every couple/few weeks.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> about version number, I'll feel more happy with 0.8 than 0.9 My point
>>> is that we are getting a first release of Royale and is the same that
>>> FlexJS 0.8 but with some new fixes and little things.
>>> As well I can see many things to do to reach 1.0, and would be great
>>> to have still an intermediate release 0.9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-11-11 22:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
>> <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Alex Harui
>> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That might work. One question: we want the same bits that were
>>>> published
>>>>> as 0.9.0-rc1 to become the final bits where you would do:
>>>>>
>>>>> npm install -g apache-royale
>>>>>
>>>>> We aren't supposed to rebuild anything. For Maven the same bits
>>>>> from staging get copied to Maven central, for Ant/IDE the same bits
>>>>> are moved (not copied) from dist/dev to dist/release. So is it
>> true
>>>>> that the RM
>>>> can
>>>>> publish the final bits by taking the same bits that were once
>>>>> published via
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>> as the final release? What does the RM to do make that happen?
>> Just:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> npm publish
>>>>>
>>>>> without any tag?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rc1 would be in the /dev/ area of the dist site. We will use a
>>>> useMirror=false flag while attempting to download the specified sdk.
>>>> This will bypass the mirror urls and directly load it from the dist
>> site.
>>>>
>>>> For the nightlies, it would be similar, except we can use the direct
>>>> url of the lastSuccessfulArtifact directory in Jenkins.
>>>>
>>>> When the release candidate artifacts get promoted to GA, they will
>> be
>>>> available via mirrors. So, we will push a new release to npm with
>>>> the new version number, which simply is new package.json file with
>>>> the correct paths to the sdk artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> I plan to write a script called: publish-to-npm which can be invoked
>>>> like
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> ./publish-to-npm -- -nightly=true version=0.9.0 ./publish-to-npm --
>>>> -rc=true version=0.9.0 ./publish-to-npm -- -ga=true version=0.9.0
>>>>
>>>> The script will take care of setting up the correct values in
>>>> package.json and will publish it to npmjs.org.
>>>>
>>>> The values would be:
>>>> Nightly:
>>>> "royale_path_binary": "
>>>> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs-jsonly/
>>>> lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
>>>> ",
>>>> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
>>>> "useMirror": false
>>>>
>>>> This will be published as: npm publish --tag nightly
>>>>
>>>> RC:
>>>> "royale_path_binary": "
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/sdk/0.9.0/rc1/";,
>>>> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
>>>> "useMirror": false
>>>>
>>>> This will be published as: npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
>>>>
>>>> GA:
>>>> "royale_path_binary": "/dist/release/royale/sdk/0.9.0/",
>>>> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
>>>> "useMirror": true
>>>>
>>>> This will be published as: npm publish
>>>>
>>>> When we move to the next version, we need to up the version number
>> to
>>>> the next one and push a nightly tag out.
>>>> P.S. All this assumes that there are no changes in the packaging
>> logic.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Om
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems reasonable for the RM to have Node.js and npm installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/9/17, 6:28 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>>> Muppirala"
>>>>> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For staging builds, we could do :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Publish:
>>>>>> npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
>>>>>> Install:
>>>>>> npm install -g apache-royale@0.9.0-rc1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For nightly builds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Publish:
>>>>>> npm publish --tag nightly
>>>>>> Install:
>>>>>> npm install -g apache-royale@nightly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, if we want to integrate this as part of our release process,
>>>>>> the Release Manager will need to have node.js and npm installed as
>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Om
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui
>>>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would be great is, when we push artifacts to Maven staging
>>>>>>> repos and dist/dev, we also push something to wherever we need to
>>>>>>> push it so npm works. Then we say in the vote emails:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maven: Use these staging 'coordinates' in your pom.xml Ant/IDE
>>>>>>> users: Get artifacts from dist.a.o/dev/royale NPM users: Run
>> npm
>>>>>>> <whatever>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But these may not be the final bits so we want to make sure folks
>>>>>>> know that and that we can push final bits later. Then when the
>>>>>>> vote
>>>> finally
>>>>>>> passes, the RM pushes the Maven artifacts to Maven Central, the
>>>> Ant/IDE
>>>>>>> packages go to dist.a..o/release/royale and we do whatever is
>>>>>>> needed
>>>> for
>>>>>>> npm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, for nightly builds, we tell Maven users to use
>>>>>>> -SNAPSHOT versions, we tell Ant/IDE users to get it from
>>>>>>> apacheflexbuild. What can we tell npm users?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/9/17, 2:37 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>>>>>> Muppirala"
>>>>>>> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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": "
>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.m
>>>>>>>> acromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F25%
>>>>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb85
>>>>>>>> 038114e2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>>>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
>>>>>>>> C636458638974117812&sdata=Pf%2Fx4OLzd65wh8OEeXC8ALh3LE%
>>>>>>> 2BBvUQGD6Ksts2pl14%
>>>>>>>> 3D&reserved=0",
>>>>>>>> "flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
>>>>>>>> "adobe_air_url":
>>>>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fairdownlo
>>>>>>>> ad.adobe.com%2Fair%2Fwin%2Fdownload%2F25.0%2F&data=02%
>>>>>>> 7C01%7C%7Cb85038114e
>>>>>>>> 2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>>>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636458
>>>>>>>>
>> 638974117812&sdata=dVNDap4qsl6i7zZ1uL%2FIiqKexCBpPPx86eqgDmslTPY%
>>>>>>>> 3D&
>>>>>>> reserv
>>>>>>>> ed=0",
>>>>>>>> "adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
>>>>>>>> "player_version": "25.0",
>>>>>>>> "swf_version": "36",
>>>>>>>> "swf_object_url":
>>>>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>>>>>>>> m%2Fswfobject%2Fswfobject%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
>>>>>>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
>>>>>>>> aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>>>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
>>>>>>>> 17812&sdata=gWVzkp0ByA8WM8SUI4pbDOKgs5omcr
>>>>> VHBnIJsy2pfQU%3D&reserved=0",
>>>>>>>> "swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
>>>>>>>> "flatui_url":
>>>>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>>>>>>>> om%2Fdesignmodo%2FFlat-UI%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
>>>>>>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
>>>>>>>> aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>>>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
>>>>>>>> 17812&sdata=nD8nezQSa9GnubwK8frZlJepgEY7zf
>>>>> dCuMRqPbC3jqM%3D&reserved=0",
>>>>>>>> "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=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook&data=02%
>>>>> 7C01%7C%7Cb6a2094e11dd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4e4c496708d527e2d4eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C636458777567763335&sdata=VO2yh0RARZiWr4jYbPz8nfsyzyCG2O
>>>>> a2KQ%2Blj
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2z%2FLIM%3D&reserved=0.
>>>>>>> com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d5
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 27b8
>>>>>>>>> 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%2Fabou
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%
>>>>> 7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
>>>>>>>>> d535%7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>>>>>>>>> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> %2FYyqi%2BYg77E%2FcoGt9naXIx24oJV3uK2fwbRB7Ef1
>>>> Ec%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
