BTW, I just realized that we don't have a royale-utilities git repo. I am tempted to simply put the npm related code into royale-asjs/npm directory and add it as an exclude in the build.xml. Any objections?
Thanks, Om On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
