Sounds good.
> On Nov 13, 2017, at 10:41 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
