I consider a swc to be the compiled distributable binary aka DLL/
Assembly in .Net world. So I would vote that we have swc be the
minimum requirement for a component being distributed. There are
going to be component developer who don't want to distribute their
code, and swc is the best way to distribute then.
So a response to your notes
1. I don't think swc needs to have docs or examples. I would have a
zip file that contains
/bin/{swc here}
/doc/{documentation here]
/example/{Examples here}
/test/{test cases here}
/src/{Src here}
/README
/LICENSE
2. I don't think swc needs really any instructions. I would think
adobe will provide some sort of generic installer (maybe one that
does what the charting components do) for component developers and
call it a say. Or have Extention Manager expanded to handle swc files
and include a file within the swc with installation process
instructions for the mxp. SWC files are just zip files so there is
no reason we can't include more metadata in there.
3. Versioning is really important, a swc file is good for that. Need
to make sure the contents always include that
The top directory structure includes most of what I can think of as
needed. But at a bare minimum you could have a README, LICENSE, and /
bin/swc file and nothing else. Honestly, I don't think we all need
to even stick to the same directory structure. But at a bare minimum
make sure a swc file has enough in it to be installed via a
standardized installer provided by Adobe or we come up with a
standard installer that takes a swc and packages it up into a nice
installer.
Thanks
Chafic
On Jul 15, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Ted Patrick wrote:
> Ralf,
>
>
>
> Nothing is technically wrong with SWC for the component itself but
> 95% of the time more is needed.
>
>
>
> Here are a few:
>
>
>
> SWC lacks documentation HTML.
> SWC lacks code examples of component use.
> SWC lacks instructions of how to install it.
> 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]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Flex & Flash Consultant based in Cologne/Germany
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
