Hi all, one question: Is it enough to package up the src directories of all modules in the "projects" directory to allow the code-insights?
I'm asking, cause I'm only packing up the essential parts of the "asjs" project and don't want to have a half build system included. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 23:18 An: dev@royale.apache.org Betreff: AW: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven aligned Aaaaah ... ok ... thanks for the explanation. That does make sense ... guess I just never completely understood the typedef stuff ;) ... so I'll have to find a way to streamline the names of the typedef libraries in all of these 2 (Well actually probably just 2) - external-library-path - js-external-library-path But that will be a thing for tomorrow ... calling it a day and signing off for today. I just pushed my changes from today ... so if you folks want to check what I'm doing ... now you have something to look at :.) Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 23:13 An: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org> Betreff: Re: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven aligned As you've seen, there are three different external-library-path options: external-library-path, js-external-library-path and swf-external-library-path. By default, external-library-path is used by both JS and SWF targets, but you can use js-external-library-path or swf-external-library-path to override the external-library-path for a specific target. In other words, if js-external-library-path is defined: - the JS target will use js-external-library-path, and it will ignore external-library-path - the SWF target will still use external-library-path Similarly, if swf-external-library-path is defined: - the SWF target will use swf-external-library-path, and it will ignore external-library-path - the JS target will still use external-library-path If both js-external-library-path and swf-external-library-path are defined: - the JS target will use js-external-library-path, and it will ignore external-library-path - the SWF target will use swf-external-library-path, and it will ignore external-library-path The air-config.xml, flex-config.xml, and royale-config.xml configs are all expected to be used for both JS and SWF targets. Different libraries are needed for each target, so we're using js-external-library-path to override which libraries are used for the JS target. The SWF target will use external-library-path. The other -config.xml files are configs that are expected to be used with JS only. Basically, these ones can use external-library-path directly because they don't need to target SWF. If we wanted, we could change them to use js-external-library-path instead, and they should still work. In theory, we could always use js-external-library-path and swf-external-library-path, and never use external-library-path. However, I do not recall if there was some legacy reason (like Flash Builder support) for why we defaulted to playerglobal.swc on the external-library-path for the SWF target instead of using swf-external-library-path. I think that js-external-library-path or swf-external-library-path were introduced before I started working on the compiler, so I can only guess. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:45 PM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > While comparing the results I noticed there are some inconsistencies > in the config files and I'm currently not quite sure to which is the > correct > version: > > In: > - ace-config.xml > - create-js-config.xml > - jquery-config.xml > - js-config.xml > - node-config.xml > The typedefs are defined in an element called: external-library-path > > In: > - air-config.xml > - flex-config.xml > - royale-config.xml > The typedefs are defined in an element called: > js-external-library-path > > Which is the correct version? > > Also are the target-player and swf-version defined as properties in > all configs except: > - asdoc-config.xml (player 11.1 swf: 14) > > Probably it would make sense to process the asdoc-config.xml the same > way as all the others. > Right now I'd just keep it the way it is. Just thought I'd point it out. > > Chris > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 19:29 > An: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven aligned > > Hi Chris, > > Yes, that looks to me to be what the Ant build is doing too, so I > think you are correct. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Christofer Dutz > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > > wrote: > > > Hi Josh > > > > Yeah .. I saw in the commit history, that they sort of were creatd > > shortly after the big-bang ;-) ... > > > > That's why I decided to take these as basis. > > > > What I'm now doing is generate a config from each by: > > > > 1. Replacing the playerversion > > 2. Replacing the swfversion > > 3. Replacing the locale > > 4. In case of a no-swf distribution filtering out the references to > > playerglobal > > > > I hope I got things right ... but I'm only including the output in > > the distribution and not the templates, as I assume they are not needed. > > > > Is that corect? > > > > Chris > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > > Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 18:46 > > An: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org> > > Betreff: Re: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven aligned > > > > I can tell you that the template config files have existed since the > > Flex days. The "create-config" task in frameworks/build.xml replaces > > certain tokens in the template based on the Ant build's current > configuration. > > > > Traditionally, a distribution would include all of the Ant build.xml > > files to allow users to manually rebuild the framework with local > > changes. If this still holds true, then the config templates are > probably required. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 1:07 PM Christofer Dutz > > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > no ... the templates weren't created by me ... they always were in > > > the frameworks dir ... I think the ANT build takes the templates > > > and inserts variables to generate the real versions. I think I'll > > > try to use these to do the same with maven ... unfortunately the > > > files have gotten pretty out of sync. > > > > > > But can anyone here tell me if the "template" files need to be in > > > the distribution? Are they needed for anything? Cause I would just > > > add the generated versions. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Februar 2021 16:53 > > > An: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org> > > > Betreff: Re: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven > > > aligned > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do have some questions: > > > > - the "framework" directory contains a log of tupples: > > > > xyz-config-template.xml and xyz-config.xml: Where does the > > > > xyz-config.xml get generated from the template in the ANT build? > > > > (I assume it generates them from the templates as part of the > build)... > > > > could we possibly omit the "templates"? It seems as if they are > > > > only needed to generate the configs for a given set of > > > > configured properties. If that's the case, we don't need them in > > > > the > distribution. > > > > > > > > > > I always though the template was created by you when you created > > > the maven build for Royale. So if you think you can remove > > > templates, I think it would be good to reduce files if they are not used > > > at all. > > > > > > > > > > - The root element of the flex-config.xml was named "roayale-config" > > > > in the Maven distribution and "flex-config" in the Ant > > > > distribution and it contained a reference to the > > > > mxml-2009-manifest.xml. Also did the Ant version contain a lot > > > > more implicit imports as well as a fxg-base-class element > > > > > > > > > > > maybe this could be the problem we're facing with fx:Array > > > > > > > > > > So far the changes I found ... I updated the distribution in the > > > > "features/distribution-allignment" branch. > > > > > > > > > > Great! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I guess I'll keep working on this and try to get the maven > > > > distribution to have the same directory structure as the Ant one > > > > (but excluding all the unnecessary stuff). > > > > > > > > > > Chris, let us know when is safe to test, and I'll do a try. > > > > > > Thanks for working on this! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Februar 2021 12:28 > > > > An: dev@royale.apache.org > > > > Betreff: AW: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > Ok ... regarding the Array problem ... > > > > > > > > I have found the "Array.as" file in "compiler-externc" and > > > > "royale-typedefs/js" ... both are identical ... > > > > I'm not quite sure which one is used (I'm a bit rusty regarding > > > > how all of these externs and stuff work together) > > > > > > > > I did check and the royale-config.xml lists the > > > > mxml-2009-manifest.xml (in both the non-swf as well as the > > > > with-swf > > > > version) so not quite sure why adding that to the configuration > > changes anything. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Februar 2021 12:08 > > > > An: dev@royale.apache.org > > > > Betreff: [MAVEN DISTRIBUTION] getting the Ant and Maven aligned > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > so thankfully Carlos re-sent me this link: > > > > flex-sdk/README_integration_with_Adobe_FlashBuilder.txt at > > > > master > > > > * apache/flex-sdk (github.com)< > > > > https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/master/ide/flashbuilder/ > > > > RE AD ME _integration_with_Adobe_FlashBuilder.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it seems as if we don't have a > > > > ide/flashbuilder/flashbuilder-config.xml > > > > with a "express-install-swf" element in it (we don't have the > > > > entire > > > > file) ... do we need this? > > > > > > > > Besides that, it seems all is setup as expected. > > > > > > > > Will continue looking into other things that could be wrong. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > > > *Apache Software Foundation* > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > >
