RE: [flexcomponents] Component Packaging, Delivery, and Installation

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:27:18 -0700

Ralf,

 

Nothing is technically wrong with SWC for the component itself but 95% of the time more is needed.

 

Here are a few:

 

  1. SWC lacks documentation HTML.
  2. SWC lacks code examples of component use.
  3. SWC lacks instructions of how to install it.
  4. If you want to distribute source as/mxml, SWC doesn’t cover this.

 

The discussion here is intended to answer this question?

 

“When a component is delivered, what does the developer receive and how is it organized?”

 

SWC is just one piece of the puzzle.

 

Regards,

 

Ted J

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [flexcomponents] Component Packaging, Delivery, and Installation

 

What's wrong with swc?
Cheers,
Ralf.

On 7/15/06, Ted Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com> wrote:
> >Cool... so... how do we do it?
>
> We just do it and move forward.
>
> The goal is to make sure 100% sure that any Flex developers can install
> components. We make the file system consistent and simple so that
> everyone understands a component ZIP file or file system. We do this as
> a group and define a standard for any component developer to aspire to.
>
> a. Reference Example Component FileSystem/ZIP.
> b. Page on Flex.org to denote standard.
> c. FlexComponents endorses it as a 'standards body'.
> d. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.
> e. Get an Adobe WhitePaper written.
> f. Get Adobe ASDocs released or use Mike's toolset!
> g. We automate compilation/packaging for component developers. Make a
> file system this way, edit an XML Build document, run this script, out
> pops a perfect ZIP with SOURCE, SWC, DOCS, LICENSE, INSTALLATION, ready
> to roll! Repeatable, consistent, simple. ( I can hear Anatole typing out
> an ANT script to do this right now... :) )
>
> The standard is a goal, something that developers should aspire to. If
> you want to write poorly formatted code without comments you are free to
> do so. I think eventually people will realize the quality of the
> components is based on these details. If docs are sharp, licensing,
> installation spot on perfect, it says that this developer took the time
> to do things right. It also makes a much stronger case for developers
> licensing components. Developers do not license crap, they license code
> that saves them time and money.
>
> We just need to take dead aim on a really great format to allow
> components to be distributed. If the format is easy for any developer to
> use, then we have succeeded.
>
> If we pruned things back to cover just a component distribution format
> then that would be perfect with me.
>
> IMHO,
>
> Ted :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Ralf Bokelberg <ralf.bokelberg@gmail.com>
Flex & Flash Consultant based in Cologne/Germany

__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Custom software development Database development software Embedded software development
Offshore software development Software development Software development company

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to