On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> You don't need to put that on all modules... you can use one of 2 > approaches: > 1 - Add this on parent pom. So all child will use the external > dependencies. Create a parent for modules if you don't have. > Yeah, I have already a parent-pom in place and will have to use that. Thanks anyway for the nice discussion and help, Marc > 2 - Use a managed dependency with scope import, take a look on maven docs > for that. > > > VELO > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Marc Speck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I fully agree that loading swz in modules makes sense in some cases. I >> estimate though that this happens by far not as often as you want to have >> all required swz loaded in the application. I read in your reasoning that >> you estimate this differently, ok. In any case, downloading the swz should >> happen extremely seldom. >> >> I have a project with more than 20 modules. Putting all those into the >> application project is not feasible. So I have to list all SDK dependencies >> as in the post above in the pom. This is not very elegant. So I suggest an >> additional parameter that externalizes all swz upon request (and might be >> independent of whether it is a module or application). >> >> What do you think? >> Marc >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> That is my point, may make sense a module with a RSL..... >>> Imagine I have my app, it loads framework.swz... but no charts, no >>> rpc.... >>> >>> The, I have a module somewhere that needs charts.... then this module >>> load the datavisualization.swz. I see as a complete viable scenario.... you >>> don't wanna you main app loading everything, just let's modules load >>> whatever they need to run. >>> >>> So I can't assume RSLs on modules means external. You will need to set >>> your scopes to external. But, when the app and the modules are built >>> together I do know that the app already loaded the RSL, so I can set the RSL >>> on modules as external. >>> >>> >>> VELO >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Marc Speck <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I'm fine with using moduleFiles or any other parameter to cover the use >>>> case that modules do not load any signed RSLs. I'd say that this is even >>>> the >>>> default use case for modules. So I'd suggest to change the default behavior >>>> for Flex 4 modules to scope the Flex SDK libs as external. Additionally, to >>>> cover the case where modules load RSL, add an other parameter within >>>> moduleFiles. >>>> >>>> Why not also use moduleFiles for projects that have only a module and no >>>> application? This is then a marker to externalize the SDK libs. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> Marc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, there is no solution for this on flexmojos side.... >>>>> I mean, may make sense in some scenario to have the RSL on the >>>>> module.... let's say something only used on the module so you wish to only >>>>> be loaded on modules.... >>>>> >>>>> Flexmojos can handle that when modulesFiles is used.... if app has >>>>> RSLs, the modules doesn't need to have it too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> VELO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Flex Mojos" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/flex-mojos?hl=en?hl=en http://blog.flex-mojos.info/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
