Hi Josh, Thanks for explanation. My expectation was just that if I run approval script with switch for JS only tests - I would get JS only binaries after final build. - This is not a blocker but everyone need to be aware that build producing JS-SWF version.
wt., 17 sie 2021 o 18:46 Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> napisał(a): > In your screenshot, the left side looks like a JS-only distribution (except > for the extra player and air directories that are there, for some reason) > because frameworks/libs contains KeepsFBFromHanging.swc, while the right > side looks like a JS+SWF distribution with all of the framework SWCs. > > It's worth mentioning that a freshly downloaded JS+SWF binary distribution > is not currently supposed to contain playerglobal.swc, and you are expected > to add it manually (or another tool like Moonshine would do that). It's > quite possible that the ApproveRoyale script doesn't do that for you, and > you still need to do it manually. > > Technically, we are able to build a playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc from the > asdoc XML using the playerglobalc tool I created, but that is not yet > included in our distribution. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 7:59 AM Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I went trough Approval script and everything goes fine. I have even > tested > > Maven artifacts to build our Apache Royale application - this one also > went > > fine. I have faced some wall when I wanted to try binary distribution > which > > was produced after build in Moonshine. When I try build Royale > application > > I'm getting following error: > > > > "This SDK does not contains playerglobal.swc in > > frameworks/libs/player/11.7/playerglobal.swc." > > > > Folder frameworks/libs - contains bunch of swcs "Collections.swc", > > "Basic.swc" etc. > > > > When I download nightly produced by Maven [1] I see in folder > > frameworks/libs/: > > > > frameworks/libs/air > > frameworks/libs/player/20.0/playerglobal.swc > > > > Screenshot [2] > > > > Why they are so big differences ? I used following command to run > approval > > script: ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.8 -Drc=6 > > > > Any thoughts on this ? > > > > [1] https://nightlies.apache.org/Royale/Royale-asjs/ > > [2] https://paste.pics/b034e5b11b9342184899e8f29b9887d8 > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > pon., 16 sie 2021 o 23:47 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > napisał(a): > > > > > This is great news > > > > > > On Mon., Aug. 16, 2021, 3:22 p.m. Josh Tynjala, < > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks again for the hard work, Yishay! > > > > > > > > I ran the approval script successfully, I confirmed that the > > royale-asjs > > > > works correctly for powering code intelligence in vscode-as3mxml, > and I > > > can > > > > compile and run asconfigc for Node.js. Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Josh Tynjala > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:15 AM <apacheroyal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is the discussion thread. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishay Weiss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > -- Piotr Zarzycki
