Hi Greg,
so the proposal is to end with:
-body
-application (used for standard Royale apps)
-AppClassName (for Flex emulated apps that will have
"_mx_managers_SystemManager" as part of the string. so this is really
"{application}" + "_mx_managers_SystemManager")
right?
what do you think about
-body
-application
-flexapplication
?
(just trying to have the same style for names and simplifying to something
more human readable)
thanks!
El vie., 6 sept. 2019 a las 5:16, Greg Dove (<[email protected]>)
escribió:
> This seems like an easy thing to fix (unless I missed something).
> So I think we just need to decide what the token should be.
>
> What does everyone think of:
> ${AppClassName}
>
> Input welcome...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It looks like that only works for debug builds because it gets '.min'
> > appended in the release build template.
> > And it seems that MXRoyale Application builds append the system manager
> > part as a variation.
> > So we need a new token probably just for the main class name.
> >
> > For now it is possible to do:
> > ${application}_mx_managers_SystemManager
> > for debug builds of mx apps.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:17 PM Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Just to add to this thread:
> >>
> >> this type of thing also works if you need the name of the application
> >> injected (which seems quite helpful for injecting into customised
> >> javascript):
> >>
> >> <script>
> >> // the name of my app is:${application}
> >> </script>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:02 PM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> ua-parser-js seems very complete. I'll have into account for my own
> >>> projects :).
> >>> Thanks for sharing.
> >>>
> >>> El mié., 28 ago. 2019 a las 5:59, Chris Velevitch (<
> >>> [email protected]>) escribió:
> >>>
> >>> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 16:34, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]
> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > maybe the actual way compiler deal with this is a bit restricted,
> >>> and we
> >>> > > can update that part including the <script> tags in the html
> >>> template and
> >>> > > making ${body} only outputs "new App.start();", so people could
> >>> switch to
> >>> > > its own "htmlTemplate"
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Sounds like a good long term solution. Josh's suggestion also good as
> >>> long
> >>> > as you remember or know the main class name of the app in order to
> >>> start it
> >>> > in the customised HTML template.
> >>> >
> >>> > As for compatibility testing, writing that test in Royale didn't make
> >>> sense
> >>> > to me if the browser you are trying to run that code in is
> >>> incompatible. My
> >>> > idea was to use https://github.com/faisalman/ua-parser-js as a basis
> >>> for
> >>> > testing compatibility.
> >>> >
> >>> > Chris
> >>> > --
> >>> > Chris Velevitch
> >>> > m: 0415 469 095
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
