Re: Testing npm deployment

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Om,
>
> One thing I'm confused about:  When I read about NPM publishing [1], it
> sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that
> folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded off of one
> of our servers.  But it looks like the old FlexJS script and now these
> scripts are trying to download the binaries off of one of our servers.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> [1] https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-npm-packages


I am a bit unclear on your how you are thinking of publishing to npm.  You
want to simply publish the binary release artifact to npm?

When will the properties in package.json be updated?  When creating the
binary artifact or when we are publishing to npm?

In my mind, the release artifact should not contain any npm related stuff.
As a release manager, I would like to download the release artifact, add in
all the npm related stuff and then publish to npm.  I am adding this logic
into a script so that the release manager can simply run it as part of the
release process.

This way, we don't have a direct dependency between the royale codebase and
the npm related stuff.

Thanks,
Om




>
>
> On 12/17/17, 1:56 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
>  wrote:
>
> >I have pushed a few changes to my branch:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommits%2Ffeature%2Fnpm-
> scripts=02%7C01%7C
> >aharui%40adobe.com%7Cd583a0036a204c481bde08d54599
> 0bde%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794
> >aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636491446017963669=
> DhjL2mrknpft7aEadZpgXnaV
> >g2w4AKcvSt8K1nQj9R4%3D=0
> >Can someone give it a look over before I merge it into develop?
> >
> >Once it gets merged into develop, I can test out the build from the
> >lastSuccessfulBuild from the jenkins build.
> >
> >I've given the package a dummy name till we test it out so that we don't
> >accidentally push a build out.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
>
>

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread Alex Harui 
I see your point, but I would rather have the package name describe the
output format instead of one of the runtimes that can handle that format.
If we output web assembly someday, I would want to use -wasm instead of
listing one or more of the runtimes that can handle that.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 12/17/17, 10:26 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
Muppirala"  wrote:

>On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
>
>Why "Air" and not "SWF"?
>
>Not sure I understand your logic.
>-Alex
>
>
>SWF is generally  associated with Flash Player which is going to go away
>soon.
>
>AIR makes it more obvious that we will support AIR runtimes.
>
>Unless of course I am wrong.
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>
>On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>Muppirala"  wrote:
>
>>I'm making progress on this front.
>>
>>I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
>>figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
>>
>>Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
>>apache-royale-with-swf?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Om
>>
>>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
>>wrote:
>>
>>> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
>>>
>>> sudo npm install -g
>>>
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl
>>>e
>>>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
>>>.
>>>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee
>>>1
>>>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwB
>>>X
>>>5ITo9FwA1g%3D=0
>>> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
>>> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>>>
>>> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download
>>>and
>>> unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be
>>>something
>>> about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
>>> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>> Muppirala"  wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui
>>>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
>>> >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
>>> >>contain
>>> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and
>>>some
>>> >> slightly different settings.
>>> >>
>>> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and
>>>settings
>>> >>so
>>> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Alex
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
>>> >know
>>> >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather
>>>have
>>> >the
>>> >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
>>>scripts
>>> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
>>>download
>>> >external dependencies if needed.
>>> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without
>>>having
>>> >to
>>> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks,
>>> >Om
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>> >> Muppirala" 
>>>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
>>> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
>>> >> >That makes it much clearer.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thanks,
>>> >> >Om
>>> >> >
>>> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
>>>>> >
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
>>>it
>>> >>and
>>> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
>>>"ant
>>> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.
>>>I
>>> >>think
>>> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
>>>-jsonly-
>>> >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
>>>to
>>> >>see
>>> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against
>>>the
>>> >>other
>>> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
>>>stuff,
>>> >> >> which might need tuning.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
>>> >>builds
>>> >> >>so
>>> >> >> you could do something like:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>   npm install
>>> >>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
>>> e
>>>

Re: Testing npm deployment

2017-12-17 Thread Alex Harui 
Om,

One thing I'm confused about:  When I read about NPM publishing [1], it
sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that
folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded off of one
of our servers.  But it looks like the old FlexJS script and now these
scripts are trying to download the binaries off of one of our servers.

Thoughts?
-Alex

[1] https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-npm-packages

On 12/17/17, 1:56 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
 wrote:

>I have pushed a few changes to my branch:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommits%2Ffeature%2Fnpm-scripts=02%7C01%7C
>aharui%40adobe.com%7Cd583a0036a204c481bde08d545990bde%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794
>aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636491446017963669=DhjL2mrknpft7aEadZpgXnaV
>g2w4AKcvSt8K1nQj9R4%3D=0
>Can someone give it a look over before I merge it into develop?
>
>Once it gets merged into develop, I can test out the build from the
>lastSuccessfulBuild from the jenkins build.
>
>I've given the package a dummy name till we test it out so that we don't
>accidentally push a build out.
>
>Thanks,
>Om

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

Why "Air" and not "SWF"?

Not sure I understand your logic.
-Alex


SWF is generally  associated with Flash Player which is going to go away
soon.

AIR makes it more obvious that we will support AIR runtimes.

Unless of course I am wrong.

Thanks,
Om



On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
Muppirala"  wrote:

>I'm making progress on this front.
>
>I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
>figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
>
>Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
>apache-royale-with-swf?
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
>>
>> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
>>
>> sudo npm install -g
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle
>>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.
>>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
>>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwBX
>>5ITo9FwA1g%3D=0
>> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
>> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>>
>> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download
>>and
>> unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be
>>something
>> about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
>> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> Muppirala"  wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
>> >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
>> >>contain
>> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and
>>some
>> >> slightly different settings.
>> >>
>> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and
>>settings
>> >>so
>> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >
>> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
>> >know
>> >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather have
>> >the
>> >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
>>scripts
>> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
>>download
>> >external dependencies if needed.
>> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without
>>having
>> >to
>> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> >> Muppirala" 
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
>> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
>> >> >That makes it much clearer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >Om
>> >> >
>> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
>>> >
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
>>it
>> >>and
>> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
>>"ant
>> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I
>> >>think
>> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
>>-jsonly-
>> >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
>>to
>> >>see
>> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the
>> >>other
>> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
>>stuff,
>> >> >> which might need tuning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
>> >>builds
>> >> >>so
>> >> >> you could do something like:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   npm install
>> >>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
>> e
>> >> .
>> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>> >> %7C5cf18485a
>> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>> >>
87031193280540=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
>> >> 3D
>> >> >>eserved=0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.
>>Right
>> >>now
>> >> >> it is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
>> >> >>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A while back I suggested:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread Alex Harui 
Why "Air" and not "SWF"?

Not sure I understand your logic.
-Alex

On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
Muppirala"  wrote:

>I'm making progress on this front.
>
>I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
>figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
>
>Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
>apache-royale-with-swf?
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
>>
>> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
>>
>> sudo npm install -g
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle
>>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.
>>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
>>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwBX
>>5ITo9FwA1g%3D=0
>> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
>> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>>
>> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download
>>and
>> unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be
>>something
>> about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
>> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> Muppirala"  wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
>> >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
>> >>contain
>> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and
>>some
>> >> slightly different settings.
>> >>
>> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and
>>settings
>> >>so
>> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >
>> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
>> >know
>> >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather have
>> >the
>> >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
>>scripts
>> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
>>download
>> >external dependencies if needed.
>> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without
>>having
>> >to
>> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> >> Muppirala" 
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
>> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
>> >> >That makes it much clearer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >Om
>> >> >
>> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
>>> >
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
>>it
>> >>and
>> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
>>"ant
>> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I
>> >>think
>> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
>>-jsonly-
>> >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
>>to
>> >>see
>> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the
>> >>other
>> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
>>stuff,
>> >> >> which might need tuning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
>> >>builds
>> >> >>so
>> >> >> you could do something like:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   npm install
>> >>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
>> e
>> >> .
>> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>> >> %7C5cf18485a
>> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>> >> 
87031193280540=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
>> >> 3D
>> >> >>eserved=0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.
>>Right
>> >>now
>> >> >> it is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
>> >> >>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A while back I suggested:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
>> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another option is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support.
>> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is

Re: Duplicated TextNode in HTML module

2017-12-17 Thread Alex Harui 
In FB, ContainerBase only shows up once in AS code completion and not in
MXML (since it isn't in a manifest).

HTH,
-Alex

On 12/16/17, 9:56 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Anyone who use Flash Builder seeing also duplication ?
>
>Thanks, Piotr
>
>2017-12-16 18:47 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
>> I see the same in Moonshine. Do you think that is problem in extension
>>or
>> somewhere in our code ? I was digging into the modules but didn't found
>> anything. I have checked also for Jsonly package what actually is in
>>swcs,
>> but also no clue what is happen.
>>
>> Piotr
>>
>>
>> 2017-12-16 18:42 GMT+01:00 Harbs :
>>
>>> Yes. I see duplication. In some places many times. For example,
>>> ContainerBase shows up 9 times.
>>>
>>> > On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:37 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Ok Thanks.
>>> >
>>> > Another question - Do you see in VSCode duplicate definition in code
>>> > completion for example Accordion ?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks, Piotr
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2017-12-16 18:26 GMT+01:00 Harbs :
>>> >
>>> >> It was on purpose. That lets you use TextNode and InnerHTML using
>>>both
>>> the
>>> >> basic and the html namespaces. Those are likely to be used with
>>>Basic
>>> >> components in addition to HTML ones.
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <
>>> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Harbs,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm investigating some issue in Moonshine with Royale and I have
>>> noticed
>>> >>> that after your changes in HTML module component TextNode and
>>> InnerHTML
>>> >> is
>>> >>> in "html-manifest.xml" and in "basic-manifest.xml" of that module.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is it for purpose or simply mistake ?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>> --
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Patreon: 
>>>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pa
>>>treon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec5
>>>864659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>>90437757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>>rved=0
>>> >>> 
>>>>>treon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec5
>>>864659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>>90437757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>>rved=0>*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Piotr Zarzycki
>>> >
>>> > Patreon: 
>>>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pa
>>>treon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec5
>>>864659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>>90437757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>>rved=0
>>> > 
>>>>>treon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec5
>>>864659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>>90437757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>>rved=0>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: 
>>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec586
>>4659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364904
>>37757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>=0
>> 
>>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec586
>>4659628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364904
>>37757714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D
>>=0>*
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon: 
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec58646
>59628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364904377
>57714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D=0
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7c49358ec58646
>59628b08d544ae4c9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364904377
>57714963=MoKWBh9XTEh714TRb1lFVmaoCsfyOh645BH0GJSn0rI%3D=0>*

Re: [Try-it-now app] Progress thread

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
On Dec 17, 2017 1:57 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

Hi guys,
I've replaced Express by Restify at server side and revised the server side
implementation a bit.
For now, this still is a very simple implementation which is probably enough
to start with.
I've created a github repo with a short explanation how you can check it out
[1].

Of course, I'd like to put it to one of our Apache repos, but I don't know
where.
Could somebody give me a hint?

Has somebody free cycles to check it out locally and more important, make it
available by the mentioned AWS instances (if it works locally for you)?

I will continue with implementing the client by using Royale.

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] https://github.com/ok-at-github/Apache-Royale-Try-it-now


Nice! I will give this a try very soon.

Thanks,
Om






--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [Try-it-now app] Progress thread

2017-12-17 Thread Olaf Krueger 
Hi guys,
I've replaced Express by Restify at server side and revised the server side
implementation a bit.
For now, this still is a very simple implementation which is probably enough
to start with.
I've created a github repo with a short explanation how you can check it out
[1].

Of course, I'd like to put it to one of our Apache repos, but I don't know
where.
Could somebody give me a hint?

Has somebody free cycles to check it out locally and more important, make it
available by the mentioned AWS instances (if it works locally for you)?

I will continue with implementing the client by using Royale.

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] https://github.com/ok-at-github/Apache-Royale-Try-it-now



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Testing npm deployment

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
I have pushed a few changes to my branch:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commits/feature/npm-scripts
Can someone give it a look over before I merge it into develop?

Once it gets merged into develop, I can test out the build from the
lastSuccessfulBuild from the jenkins build.

I've given the package a dummy name till we test it out so that we don't
accidentally push a build out.

Thanks,
Om

About website actual work in progress

2017-12-17 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi,

just want to say that I was the past weeks with heavy work load. For the
website I think most of the informative pages are done, and in my point of
view the pages that needs more work are HOME and FEATURE.

But, in the other hand, we need to make a first release to put some valid
info in the website, for example NPM, GETTING STARTED,...

So, in the end website is dependent of the first release of Royale to be
published. I think as Royale gets a first release that will unchain the
final work on website

Thanks

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Extraneous Number cast

2017-12-17 Thread Harbs 
The following code:
var range:XML;
// etc.
var childLen:int = range.children().length();

compiles to:
var /** @type {XML} */ range;
// etc.
var /** @type {number} */ childLen = Number(range.children().length());

I don’t see why the Number() cast is being added both childLen and 
children().length() are typed as ints.

Am I correct in assuming that this is a bug?

Harbs

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and
> me propose something.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>

I thought that was for naming the binary artifact?  This is for naming the
npm package.  Did you mean the same thing?

Thanks,
Om



>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm making progress on this front.
> >
> > I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
> > figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
> >
> > Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
> > apache-royale-with-swf?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
> > >
> > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
> > >
> > > sudo npm install -g
> > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
> > > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> > >
> > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download
> and
> > > unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be
> something
> > > about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
> > > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > > Muppirala" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui  >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
> > > >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
> > > >>contain
> > > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and
> some
> > > >> slightly different settings.
> > > >>
> > > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and
> settings
> > > >>so
> > > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Alex
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
> > > >know
> > > >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather
> have
> > > >the
> > > >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
> > scripts
> > > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
> > download
> > > >external dependencies if needed.
> > > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without
> having
> > > >to
> > > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Om
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > > >> Muppirala" 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
> > > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
> > > >> >That makes it much clearer.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Thanks,
> > > >> >Om
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
> >  > > >
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
> > it
> > > >>and
> > > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
> > "ant
> > > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.
> I
> > > >>think
> > > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
> > -jsonly-
> > > >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
> > to
> > > >>see
> > > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against
> the
> > > >>other
> > > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
> > stuff,
> > > >> >> which might need tuning.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
> > > >>builds
> > > >> >>so
> > > >> >> you could do something like:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>   npm install
> > > >>
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
> > > e
> > > >> .
> > > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> > > >> %7C5cf18485a
> > > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> > > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> > > >>
> > >>87031193280540=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
> > > >> 3D
> > > >> >>eserved=0
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.
> > Right
> > > >>now
> > > >> >> it is:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> > > >> >>

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread Piotr Zarzycki 
Hi Om,

In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and
me propose something.

Thanks,
Piotr

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala 
wrote:

> I'm making progress on this front.
>
> I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
> figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
>
> Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
> apache-royale-with-swf?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>
> > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
> >
> > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
> >
> > sudo npm install -g
> > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
> > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> >
> > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and
> > unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be something
> > about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
> > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > Muppirala"  wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
> > >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
> > >>contain
> > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some
> > >> slightly different settings.
> > >>
> > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings
> > >>so
> > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >
> > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
> > >know
> > >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather have
> > >the
> > >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
> scripts
> > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
> download
> > >external dependencies if needed.
> > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having
> > >to
> > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Om
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > >> Muppirala" 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
> > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
> > >> >That makes it much clearer.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks,
> > >> >Om
> > >> >
> > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
>  > >
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
> it
> > >>and
> > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
> "ant
> > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I
> > >>think
> > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
> -jsonly-
> > >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
> to
> > >>see
> > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the
> > >>other
> > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
> stuff,
> > >> >> which might need tuning.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
> > >>builds
> > >> >>so
> > >> >> you could do something like:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   npm install
> > >>
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
> > e
> > >> .
> > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> > >> %7C5cf18485a
> > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> > >>
> >>87031193280540=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
> > >> 3D
> > >> >>eserved=0
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.
> Right
> > >>now
> > >> >> it is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A while back I suggested:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Another option is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package
> > >>name
> > >> >> for the package with SWF support.

Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)

2017-12-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala 
I'm making progress on this front.

I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.

Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
apache-royale-with-swf?

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
>
> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
>
> sudo npm install -g
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>
> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and
> unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be something
> about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala"  wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
> >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
> >>contain
> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some
> >> slightly different settings.
> >>
> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings
> >>so
> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
> >>
> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >
> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
> >know
> >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather have
> >the
> >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install scripts
> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then download
> >external dependencies if needed.
> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having
> >to
> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >> Muppirala"  wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
> >> >That makes it much clearer.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Om
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui  >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building it
> >>and
> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant
> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I
> >>think
> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the -jsonly-
> >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing to
> >>see
> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the
> >>other
> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff,
> >> >> which might need tuning.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
> >>builds
> >> >>so
> >> >> you could do something like:
> >> >>
> >> >>   npm install
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
> e
> >> .
> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> >> %7C5cf18485a
> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> >> >>87031193280540=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
> >> 3D
> >> >>eserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.  Right
> >>now
> >> >> it is:
> >> >>
> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> >> >>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
> >> >>
> >> >> A while back I suggested:
> >> >>
> >> >>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another option is:
> >> >>
> >> >>   apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support.
> >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package
> >>name
> >> >> for the package with SWF support.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM.  I think I
> >> >>messed up
> >> >> >the Ant script.  Looking into it now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-Alex
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >> >> >Muppirala" 
> >>