You are right, it would definitely be clearer, what about <includeSourcesAsClasses> <source>src/main/flex</source> </includeSourcesAsClasses>
or <includeAsClasses> <source>src/main/flex</source> <includeAsClasses> ? I still think this should be the default behaviour of flexmojos given compc documentation and FlexBuilder/IDEA behaviours (but I also understand this is a delicate matter). Martino On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM, velo <[email protected]> wrote: > I would prefer a new includeSomething that does this includeSources to > includeClasses thing.... > > VELO > > On Jan 7, 8:57 am, Martino Piccinato <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think the right solution would be to let flexmojo users specify the > source > > folder where to find compilation units (already possible with > includeSources > > option) but also let them instruct flexmojos to use include-classes > instead > > of include-sources when compiling, by automatically looking for > compilation > > units on the specified paths and turning them into valid AS class names > to > > be used with include-classes option. > > > > I've prepared a patch for flexmojos 3.6-SNAPHOST where a compile > > configuration option is added "useIncludeClasses" that when set to true > > would activate this behaviour (default false). > > > > The patch works perfectly for Spring Actionscript project so that we can > > just use default source folder but force flexmojos to use include-classes > > during compile avoiding conflicts with include-namespaces option as > > specified in compc > > documentation< > http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=compilers_22....>. > > I think it could be of use for the general case: including namespace in a > > library without being forced to manually mantain big classes lists. Also > if > > I got it right this would also let flexmojos behave more similarly to > > fliexbuilder or IDEA which is what most developers are used to (and if > this > > is actually the case I would vote to have it enabled by default but this > is > > not very important). > > > > Any comments? > > > > Cheers > > > > Martino > > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:57 PM, velo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, it is a convention! CoC... Flexmojos convetion is include all > > > sources if user didn't told you otherwise. The only other alternative > > > is fail the build with an error saying nothing was specified to be > > > included, like Flex SDK docs/guidelines. Try compc.... no include == > > > no swc > > > > > Still I don't get why are you complaining so much... don't like > > > Flexmojos default? FINE! Do any inclusion and the default won't be > > > triggered.... > > > By any inclusion I mean one of this on your configuration: > > > > >http://sites.sonatype.org/flexmojos/flexmojos-maven-plugin/compile-sw. > .. > > > > >http://sites.sonatype.org/flexmojos/flexmojos-maven-plugin/compile-sw. > .. > > > > >http://sites.sonatype.org/flexmojos/flexmojos-maven-plugin/compile-sw. > .. > > > > >http://sites.sonatype.org/flexmojos/flexmojos-maven-plugin/compile-sw. > .. > > > > >http://sites.sonatype.org/flexmojos/flexmojos-maven-plugin/compile-sw. > .. > > > > > And you DO NEED includeNamespaces, so what is the deal? Is Flexmojos > > > doing includeSources even when you do includeClasses? w/o you > > > specifying it? If that so is a bug on flexmojos. > > > > > Including all sources using includeSources is Flexmojos convention. > > > Flexmojos won't force you do use includeSources, but what do you > > > expected from FM if you set nothing to be included on your SWC? > > > Flexmojos do the obvious, if there is a source folder, include it on > > > SWC.... not my fault if flex compiler is smart enough to detect a > > > class was included twice but isn't able to deal with that. Also not > > > my fault you can't use the includeSource + includeNamespaces options. > > > > > I also think is a PITA maintaining includeClasses... but that is the > > > way flex compiler is.... you can't say include com.mycompany.* .... I > > > don't even like this include mechanism, IMO it should include > > > everything that is on sourcePaths, don't wanna a file? Easy don't put > > > that file on the sourcePaths. But for some reason Adobe does not > > > think the same way, even having the same pain to maintain this class > > > inclusion lists, look at flex SDK build... > > > > >http://opensource.adobe.com/svn/opensource/flex/sdk/trunk/frameworks/. > .. > > > > >http://opensource.adobe.com/svn/opensource/flex/sdk/trunk/frameworks/. > .. > > > > > On flexmojos 4.0 I made an inclusion/exclusion mechanism that allow to > > > include/exclude com.mycompany.* ... but flexmojos 4 is far far away > > > from being released. If fact it still far from having the same > > > resources present at flexmojos 3.x. > > > > > Anyway, if you have any suggestion (beside I don't like > > > includeSources) I'm open for discussion. > > > > > VELO > > > > > On Dec 24, 11:35 am, Christophe Herreman > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > is there any specific reason why you made it work like that? > > > > > > Without knowing anything about the FM internals and objectively > speaking, > > > I > > > > think that it should follow Flex SDK docs/guidelines as much as > possible. > > > On > > > > top of that, it is obviously very cumbersome to have to list and > maintain > > > > these classes manually for big libraries like ours. > > > > > > regards, > > > > Christophe > > > > > > 2009/12/24 velo <[email protected]> > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 10:32 am, Christophe Herreman > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Should we conclude that FM should also use include-classes > instead of > > > > > > include-sources by default? > > > > > > > No, flexmojos default is include-sources using the same > > > > > sourcePaths..... > > > > > If set any other include flexmojos won't do it's default. > > > > > > > So do include-classes manually. > > > > > > > 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]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[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/ > > > > > > -- > > > > Christophe > > > > Herremanhttp://www.herrodius.comhttp://www.springactionscript.orghttp:// > > >www.as3commons.org > > > > > -- > > > 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]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[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/ > > -- > 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]<flex-mojos%[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/ >
-- 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/
