I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
-- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server > because of this line > > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0 > > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES > > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around > that? > > Thanks. > > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > Hi Josh, > > I’m running release ant script which has > > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" > failonerror="true" > > <arg value="clean" /> > <arg value="install" /> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" /> > </exec> > > This results in > > [exec] [INFO] Installing > C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > [exec] [INFO] > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler > >----------------- > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 > [6/13] > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > ]--------------------------------- > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom > [exec] [INFO] > =========================================================== > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0 > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings. > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder > .class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings > for an explanation. > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory] > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player > playerglobal.swc? > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property > containing your system which is interpr > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: > -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf > ) > > Adding > > <arg > value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" > /> > > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or > if that’s specific to my system. > > Can you advise? > > Thanks. > > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March. > > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too. > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs. > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex. > > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid > start. > > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts. > > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder` > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it. > > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point. > > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our > airglobal/playerglobal automatically. > > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still > need Flash Player to run tests, of course). > > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > wrote: > > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I > hadn't > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe > SWC > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can > now > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too. > > > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it > possible > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line. > > > > What I still need to do: > > > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc. > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they > all > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be > > looking pretty solid. > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or > > Harman, if they'd prefer. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > > wrote: > > > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as > files > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. > The > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If > Adobe > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have > our > >> version available as a backup. > >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors. > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used > in an > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or > airglobal.swc. > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of > that. > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far! > >> > >> -- > >> Josh Tynjala > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Josh, > >>> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have > >>> the > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by > >>> mavenizer. > >>> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (< > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >>> >) > >>> escribió: > >>> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom > >>> playerglobal.swc > >>> > without running into license issues. > >>> > > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and > no > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that > we > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale > >>> > > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for > playerglobal.swc > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough > information > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone > could > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub > >>> classes > >>> > and build a SWC from that. > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Josh Tynjala > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. > If > >>> > it’s > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions. > >>> > > > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is. > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira < > carlosrov...@apache.org > >>> > > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Harbs, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a > >>> piece of > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the > >>> > foundation > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem > to > >>> me > >>> > > like > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe > >>> > representatives > >>> > > to > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for > our > >>> > flex > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after > we > >>> > know > >>> > > > the solution to this request > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do > >>> it, > >>> > but > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) > >>> > > escribió: > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or > the > >>> > > content > >>> > > >> debugger. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if > >>> > > necessary. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz < > >>> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to > >>> any > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license > >>> agreement > >>> > > you > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it > >>> did, > >>> > > wenn > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things > changed) > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation* > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >>> *Apache Software Foundation* > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > >> > >
