Thanks I will look into it as soon as I can. I had tested it with my daily build which is both ant and maven, so I will try to figure out what the difference is (I don't use -Drelease.target=true for instance) Greg
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:41 PM Maria Jose Esteve <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: > … > call ant super-clean > call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P > option-with-sass-compile > SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m > call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true > > Hiedra > > De: Maria Jose Esteve <[email protected]> > Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 1:37 > Para: [email protected] > Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > Hi, > > @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an error in > the ant compilation. > > The general error: > > > > BUILD FAILED > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: The > following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: > condition satisfied > > > > in the compilation ant: > > > > Crux: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > clean: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > check-for-tests: > > > > clean-tests: > > > > check-compiler-home: > > > > check-transpiler-home: > > > > check-compiler: > > > > compile: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > compile-swf: > > [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc > > [echo] ROYALE_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js > > [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m > -Xmx2048m > > [java] args: > > [java] > +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks > > [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 > > [java] > +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true > > [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale > > [java] -metadata.date=10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z > > [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 > > [java] > -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc > > [java] > -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml > > [java] > -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks/js-config.xml > > [java] > -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml > > [java] 0.601410729 seconds > > [java] > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. > > [java] > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml > (line: 40) > > [java] > > [java] </external-library-path> > > [java] > > [java] > > > > I have verified that MXRoyaleBase.swc has not been generated. > > Attached is the compilation log. > > > > Hiedra > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Greg Dove <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Enviado el: sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 22:19 > Para: Apache Royale Development <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > > OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. > > > > I pushed the changes yesterday, and made changes to the crux examples to > use MXRoyaleBase instead of MXRoyale in the dependencies, and quickly > tested the ant and maven builds for those examples. > > I built one of them again locally using the downloaded maven artifacts > today and it worked as it should, so it seems all is well (at least for > simple testing). > > > > Let me know if you see any issues, but so far I believe it's working as it > should. > > In terms of possibly moving more things from MXRoyale to MXRoyaleBase, > there could be more candidates for doing that, but in order to do that > there should be no dependency link to any UI implementations for each case. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 PM Harbs <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. > > > > > > Harbs > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express > > > > support for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if > > > > someone is > > > willing > > > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being > > > > most > > > of > > > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as > > > > the current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a > > > > check-in to make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push > > > > any changes > > > related > > > > to this. > > > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please > > > > share them in reply to this thread. > > > > > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for > > > > example) > > > the > > > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who > > > > wants to take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set > > > > (if anyone is so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some > > > > of the UI > > > interfaces > > > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone > > > > might > > > want > > > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it > > > > is possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of > > > > the > > > Flex > > > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs > > > > because they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply > > > > for whatever other reasons they might have. > > > > > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > > > *Royale User:* > > > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, > > > > it > > > will > > > > continue to work as it has before. > > > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for > > > > example) > > > in > > > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > > > things > > > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't > > > > have > > > to > > > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split > > > > into two > > > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which > > > > will be mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will > > > > include the MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component > > > > definitions so that the code from the other swc gets included, > > > > resulting in the same swc build as before for MXRoyale (this avoids > > > > breaking any builds for folks using MXRoyale). The biggest impact > > > > from an emulation developer's perspective > > > is > > > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases > > > > (e.g. if you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in > > > > MXRoyaleBase and UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are > > > > working on non-UI code, it should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you > > > > are mainly working mainly on the UI code, which I think is very > > > > often the case, it will continue to be in MXRoyale. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Greg > > > > > > >
