Re: Website description

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Or if you want to use slack for Royale then create a channel on the “official” 
ASF slack group.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://the-asf.slack.com

Re: JSON Objects renaming (was Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases)

[Alex Harui]

Are you sure Angular and React minify your code instead of running it
against their minified framework?

-Alex

On 2/5/18, 11:22 PM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>> Maybe I'm missing something.  I don't think Royale has any extra
>>problems
>> with JSON objects than other JS Frameworks have.  If you want to minify,
>> you have to use brackets and strings.
>
>It does.
>
>I’ve written angular apps and I’ve never had to worry about using bracket
>notation for minifying simple js objects. I’m pretty sure the same is for
>React, etc.
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 11:34 PM, Alex Harui 
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe I'm missing something.  I don't think Royale has any extra
>>problems
>> with JSON objects than other JS Frameworks have.  If you want to minify,
>> you have to use brackets and strings.  If you don't want to minify, then
>> you don't need to worry about that.  Am I wrong about that?
>> 
>> 
>> JSON has something like a "reviver".  Has anyone played with that to see
>> if it can be used to convert straight to VO's?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex 
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 1:08 PM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>> An additional point:
>>> 
>>> How do you propose handling json that’s multiple levels deep? Walk the
>>> json and construct VOs on each level? That seems to me just as bad as
>>>the
>>> problem. Imagine you just want foo.baz.thingy.uid? You’d need to
>>>create a
>>> VO of foo, baz and thingy or be forced to use
>>> foo[“baz”][“thingy”][“uid”]. Of course the average user is not going to
>>> remember to do that until their release build doesn’t work…
>>> 
>>> Creating VOs means you can’t simply use JSON.parse(). You’d need your
>>>own
>>> parser for each type of json you’re consuming. OK. Maybe not full
>>> parsing, but the constructors for these VOs will get pretty messy —
>>> especially if the structure is a bit fluid.
>>> 
>>> Harbs
>>> 
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:36 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
 
 In theory, everything you say is true. It might even be good practice.
 
 I’m telling you that this was a pain point when migrating my app.
 Simply declaring types as VOs didn't solve the problem for me. The way
 I’ve found that’s needed to solve the problem was passing the object
 literal into a VO constructor and declaring the variables using
 bracketed access. I was likely going about it wrong, but it was easier
 to just go with the bracketed literals.
 
 Again: Suggesting using VOs (if we can figure out easy instructions to
 do so) is probably a good idea and better recommended practice, but
 people live on the edge using other JS frameworks, and I’d rather not
 make it harder than it needs to be if they do want to use untyped
object
 literals.
 
 Harbs
 
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> 
> It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the runtime
> was
> also strongly typed.  Also, JS was not a practical language for
>Flash.
> It
> is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS.  These new
> cars
> with lane warnings are a rough analogy.  They only let you be less
> attentive on nice new painted highways.  Flash's runtime wouldn't let
> you
> make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines.  JS is a road
> without lane lines.  A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.  An
> ounce
> of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
> 
> IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a JSON
> object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from the
> clipboard and paste into a file.  Then you could guess at the types.
> That
> wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early
>prevention.
> 
> Just an idea,
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>> Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world
>> you’d be
>> right.
>> 
>> However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with
>>more
>> data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects
>> *always*
>> is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing
>> with
>> APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my app
>> rather
>> than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a pain.
>> 
>> I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects
>> *especially*
>> when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly
>>draconian
>> to
>> make that a requirement for Royale.
>> 
>> Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s
>>*optionally*
>> typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.
>> 
>>> If you don't care about SWF support, you 

Re: Website description

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> It’s a private Slack channel I belong to. Nothing to do with Royale.

Then it seems a little odd to a link to the Royale site there :-) Perhaps it 
would of been better to post that link to the mailing list?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Website description

[Gabe Harbs]

(I was just sending some friends a link to Royale so they could check it out.)

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> 
> It’s a private Slack channel I belong to. Nothing to do with Royale.
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 11:26 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> I was not aware of this. I think I solved it. If you try now to link on
>>> slack you should see right values (if there's no catching...)
>> 
>> How does someone sign up to this slack channel?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
> 

Re: Website description

[Gabe Harbs]

It’s a private Slack channel I belong to. Nothing to do with Royale.

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 11:26 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> I was not aware of this. I think I solved it. If you try now to link on
>> slack you should see right values (if there's no catching...)
> 
> How does someone sign up to this slack channel?
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

ASDoc is looking better.  I was looking into tools to understand how
google crawls sites and found that I can't use them on Jenkins.  I also
saw in another thread that there is a way to get ASF Jenkins to push
changes to a gitpubsub site.  Also, the ASDoc URL is long and ugly.

So, I'm thinking we should create a Jenkins job to copy ASDoc to
royale.a.o.  Does anybody have any reason we shouldn't publish ASDoc on
royale.a.o?  Also, what folder should we use?  royale.a.o/asdoc/?

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 9:44 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>> What did you clean out?
>
>Everything.
>
>I deleted the entire contents of the three repo folders except the .git
>folder.
>
>I then stashed my local “changes" and pulled develop to bring my repo
>into a clean up-to-date state.
>
>I’m not sure what the problem was.
>
>Harbs
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:37 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> What did you clean out?  It might help others if you update the scripts
>>to
>> clean up better.  I thought it was working correctly.
>> 
>> When things get renamed, the scripts don't always clean out the old
>> folders.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 9:29 AM, "Gabe Harbs" >> wrote:
>> 
>>> I manually cleaned out my repo folders, pulled again and now it seems
>>>to
>>> be working.
>>> 
>>> It looks like ant wipe-all on the compiler and ant clean all on asjs,
>>> doesn’t quite clean everything…
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
 
 It looks like I needed to set some env vars.
 
 I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.
 
 I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a
failed
 build of Royale and I’m not sure why...
 
 royale.royaletasks.jar:
 
 jar:
 
 main:
 
 main:
 
 download:
 [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
[unjar] Expanding:
 /Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into
 /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
[unzip] Expanding:
 /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into
 /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
  [get] Getting:
 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorag
e 
.
 googleapis.com
%2Fg
oogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com
%
2Fc
 losureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
%7Ce7
402a81cda54e1dbc
 
e608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63653448592
05
 
06853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=0
 

 .googleapis.com
%2Fg
oogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com
%
2F
 closureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
%7Ce7
402a81cda54e1db
 
ce608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365344859
20
 
506853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=
0>

Re: JSON Objects renaming (was Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases)

[Alex Harui]

Maybe I'm missing something.  I don't think Royale has any extra problems
with JSON objects than other JS Frameworks have.  If you want to minify,
you have to use brackets and strings.  If you don't want to minify, then
you don't need to worry about that.  Am I wrong about that?


JSON has something like a "reviver".  Has anyone played with that to see
if it can be used to convert straight to VO's?

Thanks,
-Alex 

On 2/5/18, 1:08 PM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>An additional point:
>
>How do you propose handling json that’s multiple levels deep? Walk the
>json and construct VOs on each level? That seems to me just as bad as the
>problem. Imagine you just want foo.baz.thingy.uid? You’d need to create a
>VO of foo, baz and thingy or be forced to use
>foo[“baz”][“thingy”][“uid”]. Of course the average user is not going to
>remember to do that until their release build doesn’t work…
>
>Creating VOs means you can’t simply use JSON.parse(). You’d need your own
>parser for each type of json you’re consuming. OK. Maybe not full
>parsing, but the constructors for these VOs will get pretty messy —
>especially if the structure is a bit fluid.
>
>Harbs
>
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:36 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>> 
>> In theory, everything you say is true. It might even be good practice.
>> 
>> I’m telling you that this was a pain point when migrating my app.
>>Simply declaring types as VOs didn't solve the problem for me. The way
>>I’ve found that’s needed to solve the problem was passing the object
>>literal into a VO constructor and declaring the variables using
>>bracketed access. I was likely going about it wrong, but it was easier
>>to just go with the bracketed literals.
>> 
>> Again: Suggesting using VOs (if we can figure out easy instructions to
>>do so) is probably a good idea and better recommended practice, but
>>people live on the edge using other JS frameworks, and I’d rather not
>>make it harder than it needs to be if they do want to use untyped object
>>literals.
>> 
>> Harbs
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Alex Harui 
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>> It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the runtime
>>>was
>>> also strongly typed.  Also, JS was not a practical language for Flash.
>>> It
>>> is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS.  These new
>>>cars
>>> with lane warnings are a rough analogy.  They only let you be less
>>> attentive on nice new painted highways.  Flash's runtime wouldn't let
>>>you
>>> make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines.  JS is a road
>>> without lane lines.  A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.  An
>>>ounce
>>> of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
>>> 
>>> IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a JSON
>>> object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from the
>>> clipboard and paste into a file.  Then you could guess at the types.
>>>That
>>> wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early prevention.
>>> 
>>> Just an idea,
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>> 
 Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world
you’d be
 right.
 
 However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with more
 data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects
*always*
 is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing
with
 APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my app
rather
 than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a pain.
 
 I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects
*especially*
 when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly draconian
to
 make that a requirement for Royale.
 
 Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s *optionally*
 typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.
 
> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make
>ValueObjects
> just for the compiler.
 
 Quickly? I’m not sure how.
 
 My $0.02.
 Harbs
 
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
> 
> IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and
> Royale,
> which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should
>you
> want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
> type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.
>Otherwise,
> the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
> 
> var name = myProps["nme"];
> 
> 
> And there will be no errors.  And similarly:
> 
> var myObj:Object = {
> nme: "foo",
> age : 30.1415
> }
> 
> Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then
> use
> myObj when you intended to use 

Re: Website description

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I was not aware of this. I think I solved it. If you try now to link on
> slack you should see right values (if there's no catching...)

How does someone sign up to this slack channel?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: JSON Objects renaming (was Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases)

[Gabe Harbs]

An additional point:

How do you propose handling json that’s multiple levels deep? Walk the json and 
construct VOs on each level? That seems to me just as bad as the problem. 
Imagine you just want foo.baz.thingy.uid? You’d need to create a VO of foo, baz 
and thingy or be forced to use foo[“baz”][“thingy”][“uid”]. Of course the 
average user is not going to remember to do that until their release build 
doesn’t work…

Creating VOs means you can’t simply use JSON.parse(). You’d need your own 
parser for each type of json you’re consuming. OK. Maybe not full parsing, but 
the constructors for these VOs will get pretty messy — especially if the 
structure is a bit fluid.

Harbs


> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:36 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> 
> In theory, everything you say is true. It might even be good practice.
> 
> I’m telling you that this was a pain point when migrating my app. Simply 
> declaring types as VOs didn't solve the problem for me. The way I’ve found 
> that’s needed to solve the problem was passing the object literal into a VO 
> constructor and declaring the variables using bracketed access. I was likely 
> going about it wrong, but it was easier to just go with the bracketed 
> literals.
> 
> Again: Suggesting using VOs (if we can figure out easy instructions to do so) 
> is probably a good idea and better recommended practice, but people live on 
> the edge using other JS frameworks, and I’d rather not make it harder than it 
> needs to be if they do want to use untyped object literals.
> 
> Harbs
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the runtime was
>> also strongly typed.  Also, JS was not a practical language for Flash.  It
>> is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS.  These new cars
>> with lane warnings are a rough analogy.  They only let you be less
>> attentive on nice new painted highways.  Flash's runtime wouldn't let you
>> make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines.  JS is a road
>> without lane lines.  A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.  An ounce
>> of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
>> 
>> IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a JSON
>> object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from the
>> clipboard and paste into a file.  Then you could guess at the types.  That
>> wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early prevention.
>> 
>> Just an idea,
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world you’d be
>>> right.
>>> 
>>> However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with more
>>> data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects *always*
>>> is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing with
>>> APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my app rather
>>> than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a pain.
>>> 
>>> I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects *especially*
>>> when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly draconian to
>>> make that a requirement for Royale.
>>> 
>>> Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s *optionally*
>>> typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.
>>> 
 If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
 just for the compiler.
>>> 
>>> Quickly? I’m not sure how.
>>> 
>>> My $0.02.
>>> Harbs
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
 
 IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and
 Royale,
 which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should you
 want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
 type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.  Otherwise,
 the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
 
 var name = myProps["nme"];
 
 
 And there will be no errors.  And similarly:
 
 var myObj:Object = {
 nme: "foo",
 age : 30.1415
 }
 
 Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then
 use
 myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will know until you
 try to debug in JS.
 
 
 If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
 just for the compiler.  In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never instantiated.
 It is just like a typedef for the compiler.
 
 HTH,
 -Alex
 
 On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
 
>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.
> 
> Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in
> minified
> Royale apps.
> 
>> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
>> is external and 

Re: JSON Objects renaming (was Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases)

[Gabe Harbs]

In theory, everything you say is true. It might even be good practice.

I’m telling you that this was a pain point when migrating my app. Simply 
declaring types as VOs didn't solve the problem for me. The way I’ve found 
that’s needed to solve the problem was passing the object literal into a VO 
constructor and declaring the variables using bracketed access. I was likely 
going about it wrong, but it was easier to just go with the bracketed literals.

Again: Suggesting using VOs (if we can figure out easy instructions to do so) 
is probably a good idea and better recommended practice, but people live on the 
edge using other JS frameworks, and I’d rather not make it harder than it needs 
to be if they do want to use untyped object literals.

Harbs

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the runtime was
> also strongly typed.  Also, JS was not a practical language for Flash.  It
> is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS.  These new cars
> with lane warnings are a rough analogy.  They only let you be less
> attentive on nice new painted highways.  Flash's runtime wouldn't let you
> make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines.  JS is a road
> without lane lines.  A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.  An ounce
> of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
> 
> IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a JSON
> object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from the
> clipboard and paste into a file.  Then you could guess at the types.  That
> wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early prevention.
> 
> Just an idea,
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>> Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world you’d be
>> right.
>> 
>> However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with more
>> data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects *always*
>> is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing with
>> APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my app rather
>> than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a pain.
>> 
>> I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects *especially*
>> when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly draconian to
>> make that a requirement for Royale.
>> 
>> Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s *optionally*
>> typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.
>> 
>>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
>>> just for the compiler.
>> 
>> Quickly? I’m not sure how.
>> 
>> My $0.02.
>> Harbs
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
>>> IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and
>>> Royale,
>>> which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should you
>>> want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
>>> type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.  Otherwise,
>>> the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
>>> 
>>> var name = myProps["nme"];
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And there will be no errors.  And similarly:
>>> 
>>> var myObj:Object = {
>>> nme: "foo",
>>> age : 30.1415
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then
>>> use
>>> myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will know until you
>>> try to debug in JS.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
>>> just for the compiler.  In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never instantiated.
>>> It is just like a typedef for the compiler.
>>> 
>>> HTH,
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>> 
> JSON Objects are not destroyed.
 
 Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in
 minified
 Royale apps.
 
> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
> IMO,
> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs
> and
> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
 
 I already made a suggestion once:
 
 For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot notation to bracket
 notation.
 
 The other half of that would be to convert all object literals to
 “quoted” literals automatically.
 
 So if I have a function:
 
 function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
return JSON.parse(json);
 }
 
 var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);
 
 var name:string = myProps.name;
 
 Would become:
 
 function parseMyJson(json){
return JSON.parse(json);
 }
 
 var myProps = parseMyJson(json);
 
 var name = myProps["name"];
 
 

JSON Objects renaming (was Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases)

[Alex Harui]

It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the runtime was
also strongly typed.  Also, JS was not a practical language for Flash.  It
is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS.  These new cars
with lane warnings are a rough analogy.  They only let you be less
attentive on nice new painted highways.  Flash's runtime wouldn't let you
make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines.  JS is a road
without lane lines.  A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.  An ounce
of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a JSON
object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from the
clipboard and paste into a file.  Then you could guess at the types.  That
wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early prevention.

Just an idea,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world you’d be
>right.
>
>However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with more
>data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects *always*
>is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing with
>APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my app rather
>than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a pain.
>
>I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects *especially*
>when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly draconian to
>make that a requirement for Royale.
>
>Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s *optionally*
>typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.
>
>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
>> just for the compiler.
>
>Quickly? I’m not sure how.
>
>My $0.02.
>Harbs
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and
>>Royale,
>> which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should you
>> want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
>> type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.  Otherwise,
>> the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
>> 
>> var name = myProps["nme"];
>> 
>> 
>> And there will be no errors.  And similarly:
>> 
>> var myObj:Object = {
>>  nme: "foo",
>>  age : 30.1415
>> }
>> 
>> Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then
>>use
>> myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will know until you
>> try to debug in JS.
>> 
>> 
>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
>> just for the compiler.  In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never instantiated.
>> It is just like a typedef for the compiler.
>> 
>> HTH,
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
 JSON Objects are not destroyed.
>>> 
>>> Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in
>>>minified
>>> Royale apps.
>>> 
 Propose a way to determine that a data structure
 is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
 IMO,
 the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs
and
 AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>>> 
>>> I already made a suggestion once:
>>> 
>>> For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot notation to bracket
>>> notation.
>>> 
>>> The other half of that would be to convert all object literals to
>>> “quoted” literals automatically.
>>> 
>>> So if I have a function:
>>> 
>>> function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
>>> return JSON.parse(json);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);
>>> 
>>> var name:string = myProps.name;
>>> 
>>> Would become:
>>> 
>>> function parseMyJson(json){
>>> return JSON.parse(json);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> var myProps = parseMyJson(json);
>>> 
>>> var name = myProps["name"];
>>> 
>>> And this:
>>> var myObj:Object = {
>>> name: "foo",
>>> age : 30
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Would become:
>>> var myObj = {
>>> "name": "foo",
>>> "age" : 30
>>> }
>>> 
>>> These two features would have solved almost all minification issues
>>>I’ve
>>> run into.
>>> 
>>> I’d love to work on this myself, but I’m still not up to making any
>>>major
>>> changes to the compiler… :-(
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:
 
 
 
 On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
 
> I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the debug build.
> 
> I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or language
>feature
> to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on
>minification.
 
 JSON Objects are not destroyed.  The code referencing their fields by
 name
 has those names changed.  Propose a way to determine that a data
 structure
 is 

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

> What did you clean out?

Everything.

I deleted the entire contents of the three repo folders except the .git folder.

I then stashed my local “changes" and pulled develop to bring my repo into a 
clean up-to-date state.

I’m not sure what the problem was.

Harbs

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:37 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> What did you clean out?  It might help others if you update the scripts to
> clean up better.  I thought it was working correctly.
> 
> When things get renamed, the scripts don't always clean out the old
> folders.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 9:29 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  > wrote:
> 
>> I manually cleaned out my repo folders, pulled again and now it seems to
>> be working.
>> 
>> It looks like ant wipe-all on the compiler and ant clean all on asjs,
>> doesn’t quite clean everything…
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It looks like I needed to set some env vars.
>>> 
>>> I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.
>>> 
>>> I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a failed
>>> build of Royale and I’m not sure why...
>>> 
>>> royale.royaletasks.jar:
>>> 
>>> jar:
>>> 
>>> main:
>>> 
>>> main:
>>> 
>>> download:
>>> [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
>>>[unjar] Expanding:
>>> /Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into
>>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
>>>[unzip] Expanding:
>>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into
>>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
>>>  [get] Getting:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage 
>>> .
>>> googleapis.com 
>>> %2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com
>>>  %2Fc
>>> losureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com 
>>> %7Ce7402a81cda54e1dbc
>>> e608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365344859205
>>> 06853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=0
>>> >> 
>>> .googleapis.com 
>>> %2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com
>>>  %2F
>>> closureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com 
>>> %7Ce7402a81cda54e1db
>>> ce608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534485920
>>> 506853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=0>
>>>  [get] To: /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads/svg.js
>>> 
>>> double-check-file:
>>> [echo] ${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
>>> [echo] Need file: ${still_no_file}
>>> 
>>> get-from-cache-if-needed:
>>> 
>>> fail-if-not-found:
>>> 
>>> preprocess:
>>> 
>>> externc:
>>> [java] Error: Could not find or load main class
>>> org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC
>>> 
>>> BUILD FAILED
>>> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1753: The following error occurred while
>>> executing this line:
>>> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1825: The following error occurred while
>>> executing this line:
>>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/build.xml:52: The following error occurred
>>> while executing this line:
>>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/build.xml:159: Java returned: 1
>>> 
>>> Total time: 58 seconds
>>> Harbss-MacBook-Pro:royale-asjs harbs$
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Gabe Harbs 
 >> wrote:
 
 I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.
 
 Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see
 if I can figure it out…
 
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui  
> >> 
> wrote:
> 
> The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I
> have
> not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
> compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at
> figuring
> that out.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com 
> 
> > on 
> behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  
> > on 
> behalf
> of carlosrov...@apache.org  
> >> wrote:
> 
>> Hi I'm in the same boat.

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure world you’d be right.

However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing with more data 
types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects *always* is too 
confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when dealing with APIs and the 
like was the make sure to quote everything in my app rather than declare VOs 
even though finding all the instances were a pain.

I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects *especially* when 
dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly draconian to make that a 
requirement for Royale.

Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s *optionally* typed. 
Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty weak.

> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
> just for the compiler.

Quickly? I’m not sure how.

My $0.02.
Harbs

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and Royale,
> which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should you
> want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
> type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.  Otherwise,
> the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
> 
> var name = myProps["nme"];
> 
> 
> And there will be no errors.  And similarly:
> 
> var myObj:Object = {
>  nme: "foo",
>  age : 30.1415
> }
> 
> Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then use
> myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will know until you
> try to debug in JS.
> 
> 
> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
> just for the compiler.  In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never instantiated.
> It is just like a typedef for the compiler.
> 
> HTH,
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.
>> 
>> Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in minified
>> Royale apps.
>> 
>>> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
>>> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
>>> IMO,
>>> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
>>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>> 
>> I already made a suggestion once:
>> 
>> For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot notation to bracket
>> notation.
>> 
>> The other half of that would be to convert all object literals to
>> “quoted” literals automatically.
>> 
>> So if I have a function:
>> 
>> function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
>>  return JSON.parse(json);
>> }
>> 
>> var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);
>> 
>> var name:string = myProps.name;
>> 
>> Would become:
>> 
>> function parseMyJson(json){
>>  return JSON.parse(json);
>> }
>> 
>> var myProps = parseMyJson(json);
>> 
>> var name = myProps["name"];
>> 
>> And this:
>> var myObj:Object = {
>>  name: "foo",
>>  age : 30
>> }
>> 
>> Would become:
>> var myObj = {
>>  "name": "foo",
>>  "age" : 30
>> }
>> 
>> These two features would have solved almost all minification issues I’ve
>> run into.
>> 
>> I’d love to work on this myself, but I’m still not up to making any major
>> changes to the compiler… :-(
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>> 
 I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the debug build.
 
 I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or language feature
 to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on minification.
>>> 
>>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.  The code referencing their fields by
>>> name
>>> has those names changed.  Propose a way to determine that a data
>>> structure
>>> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
>>> IMO,
>>> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
>>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>>> 
>>> Also, you can turn off minification for the app as a whole.
>>> 
>>> Other ideas welcome,
>>> -Alex
>>> 
 This remains a pain point for developing apps and having to create VOs
 for every API is a drag.
 
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>> Typo. I meant js-reease.
> 
> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects
> for
> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
> just
> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
> 
> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
> the
> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature,
> then I
> think it will be 

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

What did you clean out?  It might help others if you update the scripts to
clean up better.  I thought it was working correctly.

When things get renamed, the scripts don't always clean out the old
folders.

-Alex

On 2/5/18, 9:29 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>I manually cleaned out my repo folders, pulled again and now it seems to
>be working.
>
>It looks like ant wipe-all on the compiler and ant clean all on asjs,
>doesn’t quite clean everything…
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>> 
>> It looks like I needed to set some env vars.
>> 
>> I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.
>> 
>> I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a failed
>>build of Royale and I’m not sure why...
>> 
>> royale.royaletasks.jar:
>> 
>> jar:
>> 
>> main:
>> 
>> main:
>> 
>> download:
>>  [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
>> [unjar] Expanding:
>>/Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into
>>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
>> [unzip] Expanding:
>>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into
>>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
>>   [get] Getting:
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.
>>googleapis.com%2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fc
>>losureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce7402a81cda54e1dbc
>>e608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365344859205
>>06853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=0
>>>.googleapis.com%2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com%2F
>>closureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce7402a81cda54e1db
>>ce608d56cbe0f88%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534485920
>>506853=NwzNAbDc3gdOLz94AJG1T8sf1%2FYeEzPZIjxsLLCCN68%3D=0>
>>   [get] To: /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads/svg.js
>> 
>> double-check-file:
>>  [echo] ${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
>>  [echo] Need file: ${still_no_file}
>> 
>> get-from-cache-if-needed:
>> 
>> fail-if-not-found:
>> 
>> preprocess:
>> 
>> externc:
>>  [java] Error: Could not find or load main class
>>org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC
>> 
>> BUILD FAILED
>> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1753: The following error occurred while
>>executing this line:
>> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1825: The following error occurred while
>>executing this line:
>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/build.xml:52: The following error occurred
>>while executing this line:
>> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/build.xml:159: Java returned: 1
>> 
>> Total time: 58 seconds
>> Harbss-MacBook-Pro:royale-asjs harbs$
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Gabe Harbs >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.
>>> 
>>> Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see
>>>if I can figure it out…
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui > wrote:
 
 The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I
have
 not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
 compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at
figuring
 that out.
 
 Thanks,
 -Alex
 
 On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com
 on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
  on behalf
of carlosrov...@apache.org > wrote:
 
> Hi I'm in the same boat.
> I can build the App with Maven.
> I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
> 
> 2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs >:
> 
>> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
>> 
>> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
>> JSON
>> files anywhere.
>> 
>> What creates the JSON files?
>> 
>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui >>>
>> wrote:
>>> 
 
 The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
>> so I
 can work on the ASDoc app?
>>> 
>>> What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
>> server
>>> is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.
>me%2 
>.me%2>
> Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

What commands were you running?  What environment vars did you need to
set?  No environment vars should be required other than as specified in
the README.

Your output looks like the tail end of the compiler build, not the
royale-asjs/examples/royale/ASDoc/build.xml

Note that the royale-asjs build copies the compiler from royale-compiler,
so if you make changes to the compiler you have to run enough of the
royale-asjs build as well to copy the compiler over.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 9:13 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>It looks like I needed to set some env vars.
>
>I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.
>
>I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a failed
>build of Royale and I’m not sure why...
>
>royale.royaletasks.jar:
>
>jar:
>
>main:
>
>main:
>
>download:
> [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
>[unjar] Expanding:
>/Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into
>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
>[unzip] Expanding:
>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into
>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
>  [get] Getting:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.g
>oogleapis.com%2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fclo
>sureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3adf73d4ff584fe4bd350
>8d56cbbdc35%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63653447647268233
>5=htrF8KLkzD2CcpliKTC5tneDHYE19Za75LzjtzCAqms%3D=0
>  [get] To: /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads/svg.js
>
>double-check-file:
> [echo] ${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
> [echo] Need file: ${still_no_file}
>
>get-from-cache-if-needed:
>
>fail-if-not-found:
>
>preprocess:
>
>externc:
> [java] Error: Could not find or load main class
>org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC
>
>BUILD FAILED
>/Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1753: The following error occurred while
>executing this line:
>/Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1825: The following error occurred while
>executing this line:
>/Apache/royale-typedefs/build.xml:52: The following error occurred while
>executing this line:
>/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/build.xml:159: Java returned: 1
>
>Total time: 58 seconds
>Harbss-MacBook-Pro:royale-asjs harbs$
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>> 
>> I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.
>> 
>> Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see
>>if I can figure it out…
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I have
>>> not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
>>> compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at
>>>figuring
>>> that out.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com
>>> on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>>  on behalf of
>>>carlosrov...@apache.org > wrote:
>>> 
 Hi I'm in the same boat.
 I can build the App with Maven.
 I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
 
 2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs >:
 
> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
> 
> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
> JSON
> files anywhere.
> 
> What creates the JSON files?
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui >>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
> so I
>>> can work on the ASDoc app?
>> 
>> What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
> server
>> is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
> 
> 
 
 
 -- 
 Carlos Rovira
 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.m
e%2 

 Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
%7C6b
c182a710ed4ce440e408d5
 
6cac3212%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63653440918450578
4
 data=lNdSFaLQoU9IXHtzD0ryoGXjgupvjEh314hc9nTKyds%3D=0
>> 
>

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

I manually cleaned out my repo folders, pulled again and now it seems to be 
working.

It looks like ant wipe-all on the compiler and ant clean all on asjs, doesn’t 
quite clean everything…

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> 
> It looks like I needed to set some env vars.
> 
> I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.
> 
> I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a failed build 
> of Royale and I’m not sure why...
> 
> royale.royaletasks.jar:
> 
> jar:
> 
> main:
> 
> main:
> 
> download:
>  [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
> [unjar] Expanding: 
> /Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into 
> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
> [unzip] Expanding: 
> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into 
> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
>   [get] Getting: 
> https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/closureidl/svg.js
>  
> 
>   [get] To: /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads/svg.js
> 
> double-check-file:
>  [echo] ${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
>  [echo] Need file: ${still_no_file}
> 
> get-from-cache-if-needed:
> 
> fail-if-not-found:
> 
> preprocess:
> 
> externc:
>  [java] Error: Could not find or load main class 
> org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC
> 
> BUILD FAILED
> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1753: The following error occurred while 
> executing this line:
> /Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1825: The following error occurred while 
> executing this line:
> /Apache/royale-typedefs/build.xml:52: The following error occurred while 
> executing this line:
> /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/build.xml:159: Java returned: 1
> 
> Total time: 58 seconds
> Harbss-MacBook-Pro:royale-asjs harbs$ 
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Gabe Harbs > > wrote:
>> 
>> I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.
>> 
>> Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see if I 
>> can figure it out…
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I have
>>> not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
>>> compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at figuring
>>> that out.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com 
>>>  on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>>  on behalf of 
>>> carlosrov...@apache.org > wrote:
>>> 
 Hi I'm in the same boat.
 I can build the App with Maven.
 I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
 
 2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs >:
 
> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
> 
> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
> JSON
> files anywhere.
> 
> What creates the JSON files?
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui > >
> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
> so I
>>> can work on the ASDoc app?
>> 
>> What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
> server
>> is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
> 
> 
 
 
 -- 
 Carlos Rovira
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 
 
 Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com 
 %7C6bc182a710ed4ce440e408d5
 6cac3212%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534409184505784
 data=lNdSFaLQoU9IXHtzD0ryoGXjgupvjEh314hc9nTKyds%3D=0
>> 
> 

Re: Different results for compilation Error in JS and SWF compilation

[Alex Harui]

Hopefully, the compiler returns a different exit code if there are only
warnings and Moonshine is checking exit codes.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 9:04 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>It would be great, because I have found that Moonshine's build of any
>Royale app is failing if it contains Warnings from the compiler. I could
>change the implementation a bit there, but I believe fix in the compiler
>is
>more appropriate. It would be consistent then with SWF build.
>
>Thanks!
>Piotr
>
>
>2018-02-05 17:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> Yep.  I noticed that too.  I have no idea how to fix it.  Maybe I'll
>>find
>> time to dig into it before cutting the release.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 2/4/18, 12:38 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >Alex,
>> >
>> >The same thing goes with Warnings, not only errors.
>> >
>> >Piotr
>> >
>> >2018-01-25 18:59 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>> >
>> >> I have raised issue ->
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>> >>om%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Fissues%2F21=
>> 02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
>> >>.com%7Cd46f24996cb841f1e5e208d56baaa2dc%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
>> 0bf
>> >>4%7C0%7C0%7C636533303003198853=srWYw5bL8DlUtwHdZFKEH8nGsbLcsJ
>> rwX0Te
>> >>PQhPCCE%3D=0
>> >>
>> >> 2018-01-25 18:38 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >>
>> >>> Hmm.  Maybe MXMLJSC isn't able to pick up the ErrorFormat and just
>>uses
>> >>> %s.  I've never looked into how the language resources work.
>> >>>
>> >>> HTH,
>> >>> -Alex
>> >>>
>> >>> On 1/25/18, 9:24 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Alex,
>> >>> >
>> >>> >I looked into that and without debugging there is no option for me
>> >>>figure
>> >>> >out what has happened. Both classes are using the same formatter
>>and
>> >>> >printer to output errors. WorkspaceProblemFormatter and
>>ProblemPrinter
>> >>> >
>> >>> >MXMLC is taking ErrorFormat=Error: %s from language resources.
>>During
>> >>>the
>> >>> >compilation MXMLJSC is even using methods from MXMLC.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >2018-01-24 22:49 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki
>>> >:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Ok now I understand! I will look into that :)
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> 2018-01-24 21:40 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> I'm saying that if you want JSRoyale to have the same output as
>>the
>> >>> SWF
>> >>> >>> target, I would look at the compiler source in those files and
>>see
>> >>>if
>> >>> >>>they
>> >>> >>> are doing something different.  I could go fix it myself, but I
>>am
>> >>> >>>trying
>> >>> >>> to encourage other committers to get more familiar with the
>> >>>compiler
>> >>> >>> source.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> HTH,
>> >>> >>> -Alex
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On 1/24/18, 12:37 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>>
>> >>> >>>wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >Not sure what do you mean ? That's how we use it I think so.
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >2018-01-24 21:28 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
>>:
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >> Interesting.  Hadn't noticed that.  I guess you could compare
>> >>>the
>> >>> >>> output
>> >>> >>> >> logic in the compilers.  MXMLC.java should be used for SWF
>> >>>compiles
>> >>> >>>and
>> >>> >>> >> MXMLJSC.java for JS compiles.
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> -Alex
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> On 1/24/18, 11:59 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> >Once Again:
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >JSRoyale:
>> >>> >>> >> >col: 12 This attribute is unexpected. It will be ignored.
>> >>> >>> >> >:
>> >>> >>> >> >: 
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >SWF:
>> >>> >>> >> >col: 12 Error: This attribute is unexpected. It will be
>> >>>ignored.
>> >>> >>> >> >:
>> >>> >>> >> >: 
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >2018-01-24 20:47 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
>> >>>:
>> >>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >> Links are still broken.  Paste.a.o might be having
>>problems.
>> >>> Try
>> >>> >>> >>just
>> >>> >>> >> >>cut
>> >>> >>> >> >> and paste of a section of the main differences.
>> >>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>> >> >> -Alex
>> >>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>> >> >> On 1/24/18, 10:19 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >> >>wrote:
>> >>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>> >> >> >Something happened with Apache paste. Posting once again.
>> >>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >> >JSRoyale compilation error [1]
>> >>> >>> >> >> >SWF compilation error [2]
>> >>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>> >> >> >[1]
>> >>> >>> >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >>> >>> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>> >>> >>> >> >> >che.org%2FJdNf=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> >>> >>> >> >> 7Cafcc22074376430e972508d
>> >>> >>> >> >> >5635711da%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >>> >>> >> >> 

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of ActionScript and Royale,
which is to provide a type system at compile time.  Not only should you
want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have them
type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.  Otherwise,
the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:

var name = myProps["nme"];


And there will be no errors.  And similarly:

var myObj:Object = {
  nme: "foo",
  age : 30.1415
}

Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't.  And also, you could then use
myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will know until you
try to debug in JS.


If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make ValueObjects
just for the compiler.  In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never instantiated.
It is just like a typedef for the compiler.

HTH,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.
>
>Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in minified
>Royale apps.
>
>> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
>> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
>>IMO,
>> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>
>I already made a suggestion once:
>
>For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot notation to bracket
>notation.
>
>The other half of that would be to convert all object literals to
>“quoted” literals automatically.
>
>So if I have a function:
>
>function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
>   return JSON.parse(json);
>}
>
>var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);
>
>var name:string = myProps.name;
>
>Would become:
>
>function parseMyJson(json){
>   return JSON.parse(json);
>}
>
>var myProps = parseMyJson(json);
>
>var name = myProps["name"];
>
>And this:
>var myObj:Object = {
>   name: "foo",
>   age : 30
>}
>
>Would become:
>var myObj = {
>   "name": "foo",
>   "age" : 30
>}
>
>These two features would have solved almost all minification issues I’ve
>run into.
>
>I’d love to work on this myself, but I’m still not up to making any major
>changes to the compiler… :-(
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>> I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the debug build.
>>> 
>>> I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or language feature
>>> to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on minification.
>> 
>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.  The code referencing their fields by
>>name
>> has those names changed.  Propose a way to determine that a data
>>structure
>> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.
>>IMO,
>> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>> 
>> Also, you can turn off minification for the app as a whole.
>> 
>> Other ideas welcome,
>> -Alex
>> 
>>> This remains a pain point for developing apps and having to create VOs
>>> for every API is a drag.
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
 
> Typo. I meant js-reease.
 
 Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects
for
 the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
 just
 trying to make the ASDoc useful.
 
 I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
 the
 lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature,
then I
 think it will be time for a release.
 
 -Alex
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
>> 
>> Do you mean SWF support?
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: How to compile?

[Alex Harui]

Hi Lizhi,

Did you use NPM?  If you didn't, make sure you call js/bin/mxmlc not
bin/mxmlc.


Thanks,
-Alex

On 2/4/18, 6:26 PM, "lizhi"  wrote:

>How to compile? I am from this website
> 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froyale.apa
>che.org%2Fdownload%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C56a64620dfbb4a6c
>01f508d56c86a9d5%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534247988
>277179=dqfsZxGvYy2al3dL5Yl5vBETVfO6rh0kkeC%2BP9EYPYM%3D=0
>Download this zip. Then execute the
>command line mxmlc Main.as, get this error Unknown tag: compiler.targets
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>C56a64620dfbb4a6c01f508d56c86a9d5%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7
>C0%7C636534247988277179=W4FMZ4Cg9KWZTk24ewR%2F1gBBgY7BbmyBcLb6o6ZKkE
>8%3D=0

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

It looks like I needed to set some env vars.

I did so, and I’m getting some JSON files, but not the full thing.

I just updated my repos and did ant clean all. I’m now getting a failed build 
of Royale and I’m not sure why...

royale.royaletasks.jar:

jar:

main:

main:

download:
 [echo] /Apache/royale-asjs
[unjar] Expanding: 
/Apache/royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar into 
/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs
[unzip] Expanding: 
/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/temp/externs/externs.zip into 
/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads
  [get] Getting: 
https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/closureidl/svg.js
  [get] To: /Apache/royale-typedefs/js/target/downloads/svg.js

double-check-file:
 [echo] ${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
 [echo] Need file: ${still_no_file}

get-from-cache-if-needed:

fail-if-not-found:

preprocess:

externc:
 [java] Error: Could not find or load main class 
org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC

BUILD FAILED
/Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1753: The following error occurred while 
executing this line:
/Apache/royale-asjs/build.xml:1825: The following error occurred while 
executing this line:
/Apache/royale-typedefs/build.xml:52: The following error occurred while 
executing this line:
/Apache/royale-typedefs/js/build.xml:159: Java returned: 1

Total time: 58 seconds
Harbss-MacBook-Pro:royale-asjs harbs$ 

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> 
> I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.
> 
> Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see if I 
> can figure it out…
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui > > wrote:
>> 
>> The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I have
>> not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
>> compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at figuring
>> that out.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com 
>>  on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>>  on behalf of 
>> carlosrov...@apache.org > wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi I'm in the same boat.
>>> I can build the App with Maven.
>>> I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs >> >:
>>> 
 I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
 
 Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
 JSON
 files anywhere.
 
 What creates the JSON files?
 
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui  >
 wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
 so I
>> can work on the ASDoc app?
> 
> What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
 server
> is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 
>>> 
>>> Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com 
>>> %7C6bc182a710ed4ce440e408d5
>>> 6cac3212%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534409184505784
>>> data=lNdSFaLQoU9IXHtzD0ryoGXjgupvjEh314hc9nTKyds%3D=0
> 

Re: Different results for compilation Error in JS and SWF compilation

[Piotr Zarzycki]

It would be great, because I have found that Moonshine's build of any
Royale app is failing if it contains Warnings from the compiler. I could
change the implementation a bit there, but I believe fix in the compiler is
more appropriate. It would be consistent then with SWF build.

Thanks!
Piotr


2018-02-05 17:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Yep.  I noticed that too.  I have no idea how to fix it.  Maybe I'll find
> time to dig into it before cutting the release.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/4/18, 12:38 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Alex,
> >
> >The same thing goes with Warnings, not only errors.
> >
> >Piotr
> >
> >2018-01-25 18:59 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> >> I have raised issue ->
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>om%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Fissues%2F21=
> 02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
> >>.com%7Cd46f24996cb841f1e5e208d56baaa2dc%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> 0bf
> >>4%7C0%7C0%7C636533303003198853=srWYw5bL8DlUtwHdZFKEH8nGsbLcsJ
> rwX0Te
> >>PQhPCCE%3D=0
> >>
> >> 2018-01-25 18:38 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >>
> >>> Hmm.  Maybe MXMLJSC isn't able to pick up the ErrorFormat and just uses
> >>> %s.  I've never looked into how the language resources work.
> >>>
> >>> HTH,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 1/25/18, 9:24 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Alex,
> >>> >
> >>> >I looked into that and without debugging there is no option for me
> >>>figure
> >>> >out what has happened. Both classes are using the same formatter and
> >>> >printer to output errors. WorkspaceProblemFormatter and ProblemPrinter
> >>> >
> >>> >MXMLC is taking ErrorFormat=Error: %s from language resources. During
> >>>the
> >>> >compilation MXMLJSC is even using methods from MXMLC.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >2018-01-24 22:49 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki  >:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Ok now I understand! I will look into that :)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2018-01-24 21:40 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> I'm saying that if you want JSRoyale to have the same output as the
> >>> SWF
> >>> >>> target, I would look at the compiler source in those files and see
> >>>if
> >>> >>>they
> >>> >>> are doing something different.  I could go fix it myself, but I am
> >>> >>>trying
> >>> >>> to encourage other committers to get more familiar with the
> >>>compiler
> >>> >>> source.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> HTH,
> >>> >>> -Alex
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 1/24/18, 12:37 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> >>> >>>wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >Not sure what do you mean ? That's how we use it I think so.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >2018-01-24 21:28 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >> Interesting.  Hadn't noticed that.  I guess you could compare
> >>>the
> >>> >>> output
> >>> >>> >> logic in the compilers.  MXMLC.java should be used for SWF
> >>>compiles
> >>> >>>and
> >>> >>> >> MXMLJSC.java for JS compiles.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> -Alex
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On 1/24/18, 11:59 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
> >>>
> >>> >>> >>wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> >Once Again:
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >JSRoyale:
> >>> >>> >> >col: 12 This attribute is unexpected. It will be ignored.
> >>> >>> >> >:
> >>> >>> >> >: 
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >SWF:
> >>> >>> >> >col: 12 Error: This attribute is unexpected. It will be
> >>>ignored.
> >>> >>> >> >:
> >>> >>> >> >: 
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >2018-01-24 20:47 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
> >>>:
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> Links are still broken.  Paste.a.o might be having problems.
> >>> Try
> >>> >>> >>just
> >>> >>> >> >>cut
> >>> >>> >> >> and paste of a section of the main differences.
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> -Alex
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> On 1/24/18, 10:19 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >> >>wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> >Something happened with Apache paste. Posting once again.
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> >JSRoyale compilation error [1]
> >>> >>> >> >> >SWF compilation error [2]
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> >[1]
> >>> >>> >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>> >>> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
> >>> >>> >> >> >che.org%2FJdNf=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >>> >>> >> >> 7Cafcc22074376430e972508d
> >>> >>> >> >> >5635711da%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>> >>> >> >> 7C636524147998979848&
> >>> >>> >> >> >sdata=11pnBHmUDQhSfiCfYIsbBw9G1n8vPfwEoAP09onRP14%3D&
> >>> reserved=0
> >>> >>> >> >> >[2]
> >>> >>> >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>> >>> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
> >>> >>> >> >> >che.org%2FQgUo=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >>> >>> >> >> 7Cafcc22074376430e972508d
> >>> >>> >> >> 

Re: Different results for compilation Error in JS and SWF compilation

[Alex Harui]

Yep.  I noticed that too.  I have no idea how to fix it.  Maybe I'll find
time to dig into it before cutting the release.

-Alex

On 2/4/18, 12:38 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Alex,
>
>The same thing goes with Warnings, not only errors.
>
>Piotr
>
>2018-01-25 18:59 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
>> I have raised issue ->
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>>om%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Fissues%2F21=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
>>.com%7Cd46f24996cb841f1e5e208d56baaa2dc%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf
>>4%7C0%7C0%7C636533303003198853=srWYw5bL8DlUtwHdZFKEH8nGsbLcsJrwX0Te
>>PQhPCCE%3D=0
>>
>> 2018-01-25 18:38 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>
>>> Hmm.  Maybe MXMLJSC isn't able to pick up the ErrorFormat and just uses
>>> %s.  I've never looked into how the language resources work.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 1/25/18, 9:24 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> >Alex,
>>> >
>>> >I looked into that and without debugging there is no option for me
>>>figure
>>> >out what has happened. Both classes are using the same formatter and
>>> >printer to output errors. WorkspaceProblemFormatter and ProblemPrinter
>>> >
>>> >MXMLC is taking ErrorFormat=Error: %s from language resources. During
>>>the
>>> >compilation MXMLJSC is even using methods from MXMLC.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >2018-01-24 22:49 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>>> >
>>> >> Ok now I understand! I will look into that :)
>>> >>
>>> >> 2018-01-24 21:40 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>> >>
>>> >>> I'm saying that if you want JSRoyale to have the same output as the
>>> SWF
>>> >>> target, I would look at the compiler source in those files and see
>>>if
>>> >>>they
>>> >>> are doing something different.  I could go fix it myself, but I am
>>> >>>trying
>>> >>> to encourage other committers to get more familiar with the
>>>compiler
>>> >>> source.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> HTH,
>>> >>> -Alex
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 1/24/18, 12:37 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>>> >>>wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >Not sure what do you mean ? That's how we use it I think so.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >2018-01-24 21:28 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> Interesting.  Hadn't noticed that.  I guess you could compare
>>>the
>>> >>> output
>>> >>> >> logic in the compilers.  MXMLC.java should be used for SWF
>>>compiles
>>> >>>and
>>> >>> >> MXMLJSC.java for JS compiles.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> -Alex
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On 1/24/18, 11:59 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>>>
>>> >>> >>wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >Once Again:
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >JSRoyale:
>>> >>> >> >col: 12 This attribute is unexpected. It will be ignored.
>>> >>> >> >:
>>> >>> >> >: 
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >SWF:
>>> >>> >> >col: 12 Error: This attribute is unexpected. It will be
>>>ignored.
>>> >>> >> >:
>>> >>> >> >: 
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >2018-01-24 20:47 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
>>>:
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> Links are still broken.  Paste.a.o might be having problems.
>>> Try
>>> >>> >>just
>>> >>> >> >>cut
>>> >>> >> >> and paste of a section of the main differences.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> -Alex
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> On 1/24/18, 10:19 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >Something happened with Apache paste. Posting once again.
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >JSRoyale compilation error [1]
>>> >>> >> >> >SWF compilation error [2]
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >[1]
>>> >>> >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> >>> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>>> >>> >> >> >che.org%2FJdNf=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>>> >>> >> >> 7Cafcc22074376430e972508d
>>> >>> >> >> >5635711da%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>>> >>> >> >> 7C636524147998979848&
>>> >>> >> >> >sdata=11pnBHmUDQhSfiCfYIsbBw9G1n8vPfwEoAP09onRP14%3D&
>>> reserved=0
>>> >>> >> >> >[2]
>>> >>> >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> >>> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>>> >>> >> >> >che.org%2FQgUo=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>>> >>> >> >> 7Cafcc22074376430e972508d
>>> >>> >> >> >5635711da%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>>> >>> >> >> 7C636524147998979848&
>>> >>> >> >> >sdata=EcK0PgVPJWOa9YxQcvP6LbIbFZ32hNK6pjgsN695lxE%3D&
>>> reserved=0
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >2018-01-24 18:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
>>> >>>:
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >> The links do not work for me.
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >> -Alex
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >> On 1/24/18, 4:19 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>>> >>>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >> >Carlos,
>>> >>> >> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >> >I know what causes the error :) I just wanted to know 

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

> JSON Objects are not destroyed.

Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much useless in minified 
Royale apps.

> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.  IMO,
> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.

I already made a suggestion once:

For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot notation to bracket 
notation.

The other half of that would be to convert all object literals to “quoted” 
literals automatically.

So if I have a function:

function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
return JSON.parse(json);
}

var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);

var name:string = myProps.name;

Would become:

function parseMyJson(json){
return JSON.parse(json);
}

var myProps = parseMyJson(json);

var name = myProps["name"];

And this:
var myObj:Object = {
name: "foo",
age : 30
}

Would become:
var myObj = {
"name": "foo",
"age" : 30
}

These two features would have solved almost all minification issues I’ve run 
into.

I’d love to work on this myself, but I’m still not up to making any major 
changes to the compiler… :-(

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>> I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the debug build.
>> 
>> I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or language feature
>> to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on minification.
> 
> JSON Objects are not destroyed.  The code referencing their fields by name
> has those names changed.  Propose a way to determine that a data structure
> is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.  IMO,
> the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
> 
> Also, you can turn off minification for the app as a whole.
> 
> Other ideas welcome,
> -Alex
> 
>> This remains a pain point for developing apps and having to create VOs
>> for every API is a drag.
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>> 
 Typo. I meant js-reease.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
>>> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
>>> just
>>> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>>> 
>>> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
>>> the
>>> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
>>> think it will be time for a release.
>>> 
>>> -Alex
 
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> 
>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
> 
> Do you mean SWF support?
 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

I’m using ant, but I’m not getting the json files.

Now that I know where to look, I’ll try and examine the script and see if I can 
figure it out…

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I have
> not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
> compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at figuring
> that out.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> 
> On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com  
> on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  on behalf of 
> carlosrov...@apache.org > wrote:
> 
>> Hi I'm in the same boat.
>> I can build the App with Maven.
>> I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
>> 
>> 2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
>> 
>>> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
>>> 
>>> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
>>> JSON
>>> files anywhere.
>>> 
>>> What creates the JSON files?
>>> 
 On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
>>> wrote:
 
> 
> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
>>> so I
> can work on the ASDoc app?
 
 What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
>>> server
 is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Carlos Rovira
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 
>> 
>> Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com 
>> %7C6bc182a710ed4ce440e408d5
>> 6cac3212%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534409184505784
>> data=lNdSFaLQoU9IXHtzD0ryoGXjgupvjEh314hc9nTKyds%3D=0

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

Regarding Routing.  I don't know what "generic" means.  There is now a
bead that dispatches an event when the hash fragment changes.  Logic in
ASDoc processes that hash.  Maybe there is some standard encoding we can
pack in the hash that could map to view states or something, but it would
make the hash uglier, IMO.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 12:33 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>great work on this part. I'll try to build it localy and see if I can
>tweak
>a bit the look and feel to help with presentation as I get some free time.
>
>About routing, you made something generic for Royale? or is only made for
>this ASDoc Reference App?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>2018-02-05 9:21 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>
>> >Typo. I meant js-reease.
>>
>> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
>> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
>>just
>> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>>
>> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
>>the
>> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
>> think it will be time for a release.
>>
>> -Alex
>> >
>> >> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean SWF support?
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf2ee1b2fc0da463b8e8d08d5
>6c7345fa%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534164705226067
>data=7lSe%2BtUKFNWRKCXKm8naElOEAwM17IUNNvjxHgGuAWU%3D=0

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the debug build.
>
>I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or language feature
>to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on minification.

JSON Objects are not destroyed.  The code referencing their fields by name
has those names changed.  Propose a way to determine that a data structure
is external and what the compiler should generate and implement it.  IMO,
the answer is to create ValueObjects.  That is essentially typedefs and
AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.

Also, you can turn off minification for the app as a whole.

Other ideas welcome,
-Alex

>This remains a pain point for developing apps and having to create VOs
>for every API is a drag.
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui 
>>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Typo. I meant js-reease.
>> 
>> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
>> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
>>just
>> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>> 
>> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
>>the
>> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
>> think it will be time for a release.
>> 
>> -Alex
>>> 
 On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
wrote:
 
> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
 
 Do you mean SWF support?
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

The Ant script for examples/royale/ASDoc builds the JSON files.  I have
not taken the time to figure out how to make Maven call the ASDoc
compiler.  Someone with more Maven knowledge might be faster at figuring
that out.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 7:21 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi I'm in the same boat.
>I can build the App with Maven.
>I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated
>
>2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
>
>> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
>>
>> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no
>>JSON
>> files anywhere.
>>
>> What creates the JSON files?
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally,
>>so I
>> >> can work on the ASDoc app?
>> >
>> > What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI
>>server
>> > is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6bc182a710ed4ce440e408d5
>6cac3212%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534409184505784
>data=lNdSFaLQoU9IXHtzD0ryoGXjgupvjEh314hc9nTKyds%3D=0

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi I'm in the same boat.
I can build the App with Maven.
I ran it and saw the main layout but the list are not populated

2018-02-05 11:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :

> I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.
>
> Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no JSON
> files anywhere.
>
> What creates the JSON files?
>
> > On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally, so I
> >> can work on the ASDoc app?
> >
> > What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI server
> > is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.
>
>


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

Re: Website description

[Carlos Rovira]

Thanks Harbs,

I was not aware of this. I think I solved it. If you try now to link on
slack you should see right values (if there's no catching...)

thanks

2018-02-05 10:21 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :

> Take a look at the HTML source:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> I noticed because I linked to the site on Slack and it displayed the
> description text.
>
> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying we have a "lorem Epsom" text in
> the
> > website? I search but can't find
> > Could you share a link?
> >
> > btw, in all websites pages right bottom part you can see the "About Us"
> > with the description of what is Apache Royale.
> >
> > Actually:
> >
> > Apache Royale™  is a highly productive open
> > source application technology for building expressive frontend
> applications
> > that outputs to different formats and deploys consistently on all major
> > browsers, desktops and devices.
> >
> > But we can change to anything that comprises the best definition with
> > minimun wording
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-02-03 21:41 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :
> >
> >> Sounds like me after root-canal surgery.
> >>
> >> How about
> >>
> >> Apache Royale is an open-source system that helps you build applications
> >> once and then deploy them on many platforms and on mobile devices.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Gabe Harbs 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It looks like no-one ever fixed the website description (which is used
> by
> >>> many social networks as well as search engines):
> >>> Has ad laudem impedit assueverit, vim ne corpora invenire. Consul
> >>> salutatus voluptaria te mei, ei ullum liberavisse usu.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Wetmore
> >>
> >> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


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

How to compile?

[lizhi]

How to compile? I am from this website
 http://royale.apache.org/download/ Download this zip. Then execute the
command line mxmlc Main.as, get this error Unknown tag: compiler.targets



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

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Gabe Harbs]

I don’t see any son files when I build the framework.

Building the ASDoc project builds the ASDoc app, but again, I see no JSON files 
anywhere.

What creates the JSON files?

> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The big question: How do I build this with real JSON data locally, so I
>> can work on the ASDoc app?
> 
> What error are you getting?  It builds with Ant for me and the CI server
> is building it.  The build script will build the JSON.

Re: Website description

[Gabe Harbs]

Take a look at the HTML source:















I noticed because I linked to the site on Slack and it displayed the 
description text.

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying we have a "lorem Epsom" text in the
> website? I search but can't find
> Could you share a link?
> 
> btw, in all websites pages right bottom part you can see the "About Us"
> with the description of what is Apache Royale.
> 
> Actually:
> 
> Apache Royale™  is a highly productive open
> source application technology for building expressive frontend applications
> that outputs to different formats and deploys consistently on all major
> browsers, desktops and devices.
> 
> But we can change to anything that comprises the best definition with
> minimun wording
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 2018-02-03 21:41 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :
> 
>> Sounds like me after root-canal surgery.
>> 
>> How about
>> 
>> Apache Royale is an open-source system that helps you build applications
>> once and then deploy them on many platforms and on mobile devices.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>> 
>>> It looks like no-one ever fixed the website description (which is used by
>>> many social networks as well as search engines):
>>> Has ad laudem impedit assueverit, vim ne corpora invenire. Consul
>>> salutatus voluptaria te mei, ei ullum liberavisse usu.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew Wetmore
>> 
>> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

Hi Carlos,

Yes, your input on the UX is more than welcome.  Another approach you
could take is to download the last successful artifacts (bin/js-debug) and
tweak the ASDoc.css file and refresh the browser and let us know what
changes you made.

http://apacheroyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_ASDoc_Exam
ple/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/examples/royale/ASDoc/bin/

Thanks,
-Alex

On 2/5/18, 12:33 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>great work on this part. I'll try to build it localy and see if I can
>tweak
>a bit the look and feel to help with presentation as I get some free time.
>
>About routing, you made something generic for Royale? or is only made for
>this ASDoc Reference App?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>2018-02-05 9:21 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>>
>> >Typo. I meant js-reease.
>>
>> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
>> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm
>>just
>> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>>
>> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from
>>the
>> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
>> think it will be time for a release.
>>
>> -Alex
>> >
>> >> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean SWF support?
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf2ee1b2fc0da463b8e8d08d5
>6c7345fa%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636534164705226067
>data=7lSe%2BtUKFNWRKCXKm8naElOEAwM17IUNNvjxHgGuAWU%3D=0

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

great work on this part. I'll try to build it localy and see if I can tweak
a bit the look and feel to help with presentation as I get some free time.

About routing, you made something generic for Royale? or is only made for
this ASDoc Reference App?

Thanks



2018-02-05 9:21 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
>
> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
>
> >Typo. I meant js-reease.
>
> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
> the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm just
> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>
> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from the
> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
> think it will be time for a release.
>
> -Alex
> >
> >> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
> >>
> >> Do you mean SWF support?
> >
>
>


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

Re: Website description

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying we have a "lorem Epsom" text in the
website? I search but can't find
Could you share a link?

btw, in all websites pages right bottom part you can see the "About Us"
with the description of what is Apache Royale.

Actually:

Apache Royale™  is a highly productive open
source application technology for building expressive frontend applications
that outputs to different formats and deploys consistently on all major
browsers, desktops and devices.

But we can change to anything that comprises the best definition with
minimun wording

thanks



2018-02-03 21:41 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :

> Sounds like me after root-canal surgery.
>
> How about
>
> Apache Royale is an open-source system that helps you build applications
> once and then deploy them on many platforms and on mobile devices.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
>
> > It looks like no-one ever fixed the website description (which is used by
> > many social networks as well as search engines):
> > Has ad laudem impedit assueverit, vim ne corpora invenire. Consul
> > salutatus voluptaria te mei, ei ullum liberavisse usu.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>



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

Re: ASDoc, Routing, Releases

[Alex Harui]

On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

>Typo. I meant js-reease.

Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build Value Objects for
the JSON and get js-release working.  Maybe after this release.  I'm just
trying to make the ASDoc useful.

I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and anchor links from the
lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class feature, then I
think it will be time for a release.

-Alex
>
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
>> 
>> Do you mean SWF support?
>