I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P option-with-swf on one of the computers.
-- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote: > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both > using option-with-swf? > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml >> >> <profile> >> <id>option-with-swf</id> >> <dependencies> >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests --> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId> >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId> >> <version>${flash.version}</version> >> <type>swc</type> >> <scope>runtime</scope> >> </dependency> >> </dependencies> >> </profile> >> >> From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM >> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) >> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since >> he >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore. >> >> -- >> Josh Tynjala >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server >> > because of this line >> > >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0 >> > >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES >> > >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around >> > that? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) >> > >> > Hi Josh, >> > >> > I’m running release ant script which has >> > >> > <exec executable="${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 >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>
