:P My name is "María José", Hiedra is my nickname (I'm already a few years old...) but anyone will do.
I tried without the -Drelease.target=true option and got the same error. It does seem strange... because my .bat is the same as always :) Tomorrow I'll do some more tests and I'll share the results (in Spain it's 4.38 am and I'm too sleepy to see the screen, :P) Hiedra -----Mensaje original----- De: Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 4:00 Para: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Hiedra (or is it Maria? I apologise, but I am still not sure which name, but I guess it is Hiedra), I was not able to reproduce the issue you described, when I followed the same build commands that you used. Everything worked for me... Also, the CI build is working with ant just fine, it seems, build is working after the changes and I can see the MXRoyaleBase.swc in the nightly build when I download it: http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/royale-asjs/ I'm not sure what is causing the problem for you, unless you had some local changes in the build scripts and conflicts that did not resolve well when you pulled the updates (probably not, I am just trying to guess how this could happen). Hopefully it will resolve next time you try. If anyone else sees the same issue, can you please let me know? Thanks, Greg On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <mjest...@iest.com> > 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 <mjest...@iest.com> Enviado el: domingo, 10 de >> octubre de 2021 1:37 >> Para: dev@royale.apache.org >> 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/fra >> +meworks >> >> [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\framew >> orks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc >> >> [java] >> -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\f >> rameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml >> >> [java] >> -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-for >> k/frameworks/js-config.xml >> >> [java] >> -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fo >> -js-load-config+rk\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/ >> -js-load-config+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\pro >> jects\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 <greg.d...@gmail.com<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> >> Enviado el: sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 22:19 >> Para: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org<mailto: >> dev@royale.apache.org>> >> 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 <harbs.li...@gmail.com<mailto: >> harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> > This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. >> >> > >> >> > Harbs >> >> > >> >> > > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com<mailto: >> greg.d...@gmail.com>> 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >
