Alex, I'm pretty sure that some time ago we had discussion about that. Someone provided some links to the projects in the Apache which share links to the nightly builds, with appropriate statement on their website. The statement which we have on the website has been taken from there:
"These nightly builds are generated from our development branch, which means the distributions may not be fully functional and/or could contain bugs. We strongly recommend not to use this nightly builds in production environments." I think we are not doing anything wrong here. Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-04 18:39 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > On 1/4/18, 3:19 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Thanks again Alex, it's getting clearer and clearer for me! > > > >I also thought about something similar to your suggestion [1]. > >But I thought this would be not a good idea because going this way we have > >to implement the ace JS API twice. Once in ace.as and once in > >ACEEditor.as. > >But I guess this is the price we have to pay in order to get such fully > >integrated Royale components!? ;-) > > IMO, very few existing JS libraries are property-oriented since properties > (Object.defineProperty) is relatively new in JS. So our work is to > repackage JS libraries for MXML and "harden" (strongly-type) the API by > adding types and constants and other AS constructs. This repackaging also > abstracts the actual platform implementation so that the component can be > implemented on other platforms. > > Once you create the Typedefs SWC for "ace", someone will be able to skip > using the Royale framework and create a "native" JS file by using the > ace-typedefs.SWC and js.swc and more closely following the ace embedding > example I linked to earlier. You are welcome to provide a "native" > example for folks to use as a comparison as well. If folks were to use > the native version, eventually there would be dozens of copies of that > embedding snippet written and debugged by these folks. The thing we want > to provide to our users is a more uniform usage workflow so you don't have > to look up how to use it. You are going to write and debug that snippet > once, and folks will not have to worry about it, they can use ACEEditor > just like any other Royale component, and can use it from MXML as well. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > > >Thanks, > >Olaf > > > > > >[1]: > >private var _theme:String; > >public function get theme():String > >{ > > return _theme; > >} > >public function set theme(value:String):void > >{ > > _theme = value; > > editor.setTheme(value); > >} > > > > > > > >-- > >Sent from: > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy > >ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > %7 > >C4833247d0aa54b9fae0b08d5536508ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7 > >C0%7C636506615822957522&sdata=5FPIdOZb4NwWem% > 2FFQKu6hMzDSjhICZhQguUh7dUT1A > >c%3D&reserved=0 > > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
