Hi,
if I understand correctly, both "runtime" and "provided" are right now
equal for the compiler, right? I'm ok to understand conceptually
"runtime" and "provided" as Greg says. At least for now, although if we can
inform the compiler to differentiate as well would be great.
In the other hand, flemojos seems to me more natural ("merged",
"external",...) since is what we use to manage in Flex days and in
FlashBuilder,
but don't know if is worth it to go to that kind of names, or better go to
the standard maven names. If it was easy to add flemojos names, I'd choose
those, but since there's many things to do, maybe we can stick with what we
have.
In the other hand, thanks to Greg, we have this config solved in our real
App now. But I think in the process of doing this fix I think Greg saw some
issues
at framework level for maven. Hope Greg can expose it better if that's the
case, since maybe I'm wrong.
thanks
El mié., 24 jul. 2019 a las 2:15, Greg Dove (<[email protected]>)
escribió:
> Just to add to the discussion on the 'provided' vs. 'runtime' scopes...
> I'm not really sure what scope name should be used for what, but here's
> what I have assumed:
> 'runtime' is for 'native' libs where the runtime provides the api surface
> that is represented by the swc. (playerglobal/ js-typedefs examples)
> 'provided' is for dependencies that are pre-compiled swc dependencies,
> where the dependency is expected to provided when the application is built
> (in this case I have assumed it is explicitly listed as a dependency for
> the application build).
>
> I think these are different to what used to be the case with FlexMojos (see
> 'Scope options in Flexmojos' [1])
> Also it seems that we don't do any of this in the framework project level
> poms, so I assume
> that <forceSwcExternalLibraryPath>true</forceSwcExternalLibraryPath> at
> frameworks/projects/pom.xml is a 'brute-force' override, simulating
> <scope>provided</provided> for each of the child framework projects' swc
> dependencies, and avoiding them being merged in for each of the framework
> swcs. I assume this might be another difference from [1] also, but I'm not
> really sure as my only exposure to maven has been since FlexJS/Royale.
>
>
> 1.
> https://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flex-maven-flexmojos-pt3.html
>
>
>
> --
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
