Forking SVG to its own thread.  Thoughts on the asset question below.

On 2/26/18, 1:45 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>many thanks, just test and this is working fine! :)
>
>One more thing to think about now that we get to this point. In order for
>SWF and JS versions to share the same assets...should we move swf to the
>same folder than "assets"?...or maybe put assets (and maybe CSS) directly
>on "target" folder? So any output could grab a the same assets folder (or
>in other words, to avoid copying 2, 3 or more versions of the same files)

The JS compiler is setup as a bundle with a Compiler and a Publisher.  The
compiler outputs a single .js file per .as or .mxml file and then if no
errors are found the Publisher copies the goog files from Google Closure
Library, copies assets from the file system and now, copies assets from
SWC files.  It also outputs the final CSS file and handles the HTML
template.

I've been pondering the notion of wrapping the SWF compiler in a Publisher
as well.  It would be set up the same way as the JS compiler.  If the SWF
compile complete, the Publisher goes to work.  A SWF publisher would copy
assets from the file system and SWCs and would know how to fix up the
SWFObject template and AIR -app.xml templates.  The upside of a publisher
getting a hand-off from the compiler is that the publisher often wants to
know information discovered during the compile, such as the width and
height of the Application if it is fixed size, and also a background
color.  Right now, there is an Ant task that can fix up the SWFObject
template and FlashBuilder knows how as well.  I assume the other IDEs know
how to fix up the SWFObject template as well.  But building that into the
Publisher would save some configuration hassle for the user.  The only
downside I've thought of is just that it is weird to have a publisher
attached to the compiler.  I don't think most compilers have a publisher.

Really, though, for now, I'm not sure how essential a SWF-side publisher
really would be.   I'm not sure how many people are going to run the SWF
version and how painful it would be to just use Maven or Ant and copy the
asset folder.  I think even FB has a post-compile step that could
potentially be used to copy things from bin/js-debug to bin-debug.

Of course, I could be wrong...

-Alex

>

Reply via email to