I see your point, but I would rather have the package name describe the output format instead of one of the runtimes that can handle that format. If we output web assembly someday, I would want to use -wasm instead of listing one or more of the runtimes that can handle that.
My 2 cents, -Alex On 12/17/17, 10:26 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > >Why "Air" and not "SWF"? > >Not sure I understand your logic. >-Alex > > >SWF is generally associated with Flash Player which is going to go away >soon. > >AIR makes it more obvious that we will support AIR runtimes. > >Unless of course I am wrong. > >Thanks, >Om > > > >On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I'm making progress on this front. >> >>I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and >>figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. >> >>Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of >>apache-royale-with-swf? >> >>Thanks, >>Om >> >>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. >>> >>> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: >>> >>> sudo npm install -g >>> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>>e >>>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe >>>. >>>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee >>>1 >>>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246&sdata=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwB >>>X >>>5ITo9FwA1g%3D&reserved=0 >>> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil >>> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >>> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download >>>and >>> unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be >>>something >>> about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did >>> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui >>><aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an >>> >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages >>> >>contain >>> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and >>>some >>> >> slightly different settings. >>> >> >>> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and >>>settings >>> >>so >>> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. >>> >> >>> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. >>> >> >>> >> -Alex >>> >> >>> > >>> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to >>> >know >>> >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather >>>have >>> >the >>> >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install >>>scripts >>> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then >>>download >>> >external dependencies if needed. >>> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without >>>having >>> >to >>> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. >>> > >>> >Thanks, >>> >Om >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> >> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >>> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >>> >> >That makes it much clearer. >>> >> > >>> >> >Thanks, >>> >> >Om >>> >> > >>> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui >>><aha...@adobe.com.invalid >>> > >>> >> >wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building >>>it >>> >>and >>> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running >>>"ant >>> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. >>>I >>> >>think >>> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the >>>-jsonly- >>> >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing >>>to >>> >>see >>> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against >>>the >>> >>other >>> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe >>>stuff, >>> >> >> which might need tuning. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly >>> >>builds >>> >> >>so >>> >> >> you could do something like: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> npm install >>> >> >>> >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach >>> >>>>e >>> >> . >>> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com >>> >> %7C5cf18485a >>> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >>> >> >>>>>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% >>> >> 3D&r >>> >> >>eserved=0 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. >>>Right >>> >>now >>> >> >> it is: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >>> >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin >>> >> >> >>> >> >> A while back I suggested: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >>> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Another option is: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >>> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the >>>package >>> >>name >>> >> >> for the package with SWF support. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thoughts? >>> >> >> -Alex >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I >>> >> >>messed up >>> >> >> >the Ant script. Looking into it now. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >-Alex >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> >> >> >Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" >>><aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>> >> >>wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> >> >> >>Muppirala" >>> >> >> >><omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" >>><aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after >>>the >>> >>CI >>> >> >> >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> npm install >>> >> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>> >> >> >>>e >>> >> >> >>>x >>> >> >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% >>> >> >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >>> >> >> >>>0 >>> >> >> >>>2 >>> >> >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 >>> >> >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >>> >> >> >>>7 >>> >> >> >>>b >>> >> >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& >>> >> >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >>> >> >> >>>E >>> >> >> >>>Z >>> >> >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you >>>run: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> npm install >>> >> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>> >> >> >>>e >>> >> >> >>>x >>> >> >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% >>> >> >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >>> >> >> >>>0 >>> >> >> >>>2 >>> >> >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 >>> >> >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >>> >> >> >>>7 >>> >> >> >>>b >>> >> >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& >>> >> >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >>> >> >> >>>E >>> >> >> >>>Z >>> >> >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier >>> >> >>npm-flexjs >>> >> >> >>code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff >>> >>since >>> >> >> >>other >>> >> >> >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package >>> >> >>(framework, >>> >> >> >>falcon, swfobject). >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>Thanks, >>> >> >> >>-Alex >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>Sounds good. I will start working on this today. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>Thanks, >>> >> >> >>Om >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
