Re: [royale-compiler] 09/20: change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17

[Alex Harui]

I came up with an idea.  I created enough issues to track other things I
noticed in changing over to Royale such that I could create issue #17 for
the change over.

HTH,
-Alex

On 10/4/17, 7:58 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

>Hi Piotr,
>
>I have no idea how to fix this.  I will try to do better next time.
>
>Sorry,
>-Alex
>
>On 10/4/17, 3:43 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
>>Hi Alex,
>>
>>If we would like to point to the issue in commit message from one repo
>>(royale-compiler) to the other one (royale-asjs) - it should look:
>>
>>"Commit message (reference apache/royale-asjs#17) - Commit message to
>>royale-compiler, but issue is raised in royale-asjs.
>>
>>If some day in royale-compiler we will raise issue number 17 those
>>commits
>>may point to that.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Piotr
>>
>>
>>2017-10-05 0:35 GMT+02:00 :
>>
>>> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>>>
>>> aharui pushed a commit to branch feature/rename
>>> in repository 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitbox.
>>>a
>>>pache.org%2Frepos%2Fasf%2Froyale-compiler.git=02%7C01%7C%7C60118b04
>>>c
>>>c804aff6eb608d50b7966f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636
>>>4
>>>27538410858041=z7fhOECHDeBHnMINms5g4FeootpfFJAi3HV3S9z2aug%3D
>>>r
>>>ved=0
>>>
>>> commit ff91950a9a5b41c5dac21cca06f91c0a01a8cd23
>>> Author: Alex Harui 
>>> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 3 11:42:24 2017 -0700
>>>
>>> change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17
>>> ---
>>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java  |
>>>6
>>> +++---
>>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java |
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java|
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASDocMojo.java |
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASMojo.java|
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileAppMojo.java   |
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileJSMojo.java|
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileTypedefsMojo.java  |
>>>2
>>> +-
>>>  8 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> 
>>>b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension
>>>/
>>> FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> similarity index 92%
>>> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> index 4ae6fdd..d5707d7 100644
>>> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>>   * limitations under the License.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
>>> +package org.apache.royale.maven.extension;
>>>
>>>  import org.apache.maven.repository.internal.LanguageSupport;
>>>  import org.codehaus.plexus.component.annotations.Component;
>>> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ import javax.inject.Named;
>>>   * Created by christoferdutz on 18.07.16.
>>>   */
>>>  @Named
>>> -@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "flexjs" )
>>> +@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "royale" )
>>>  public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements LanguageSupport {
>>>
>>>  private static final FlexJsScopeSelector SCOPE_SELECTOR = new
>>> FlexJsScopeSelector();
>>> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements
>>> LanguageSupport {
>>>
>>>  @Override
>>>  public String getLanguageName() {
>>> -return "flexjs";
>>> +return "royale";
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  @Override
>>> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> 
>>>b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension
>>>/
>>> FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> similarity index 94%
>>> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> index dfa3f41..18f6013 100644
>>> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>>> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>>   * limitations under the License.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
>>> +package 

Re: [royale-compiler] 09/20: change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17

[Alex Harui]

Hi Piotr,

I have no idea how to fix this.  I will try to do better next time.

Sorry,
-Alex

On 10/4/17, 3:43 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>If we would like to point to the issue in commit message from one repo
>(royale-compiler) to the other one (royale-asjs) - it should look:
>
>"Commit message (reference apache/royale-asjs#17) - Commit message to
>royale-compiler, but issue is raised in royale-asjs.
>
>If some day in royale-compiler we will raise issue number 17 those commits
>may point to that.
>
>Thanks,
>Piotr
>
>
>2017-10-05 0:35 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>>
>> aharui pushed a commit to branch feature/rename
>> in repository 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitbox.a
>>pache.org%2Frepos%2Fasf%2Froyale-compiler.git=02%7C01%7C%7C60118b04c
>>c804aff6eb608d50b7966f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>27538410858041=z7fhOECHDeBHnMINms5g4FeootpfFJAi3HV3S9z2aug%3D
>>ved=0
>>
>> commit ff91950a9a5b41c5dac21cca06f91c0a01a8cd23
>> Author: Alex Harui 
>> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 3 11:42:24 2017 -0700
>>
>> change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17
>> ---
>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java  | 6
>> +++---
>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java | 2
>> +-
>>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java| 2
>> +-
>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASDocMojo.java | 2
>> +-
>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASMojo.java| 2
>> +-
>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileAppMojo.java   | 2
>> +-
>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileJSMojo.java| 2
>> +-
>>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileTypedefsMojo.java  | 2
>> +-
>>  8 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> 
>>b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
>> FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> similarity index 92%
>> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> index 4ae6fdd..d5707d7 100644
>> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>   * limitations under the License.
>>   */
>>
>> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
>> +package org.apache.royale.maven.extension;
>>
>>  import org.apache.maven.repository.internal.LanguageSupport;
>>  import org.codehaus.plexus.component.annotations.Component;
>> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ import javax.inject.Named;
>>   * Created by christoferdutz on 18.07.16.
>>   */
>>  @Named
>> -@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "flexjs" )
>> +@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "royale" )
>>  public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements LanguageSupport {
>>
>>  private static final FlexJsScopeSelector SCOPE_SELECTOR = new
>> FlexJsScopeSelector();
>> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements
>> LanguageSupport {
>>
>>  @Override
>>  public String getLanguageName() {
>> -return "flexjs";
>> +return "royale";
>>  }
>>
>>  @Override
>> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> 
>>b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
>> FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> similarity index 94%
>> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> index dfa3f41..18f6013 100644
>> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>   * limitations under the License.
>>   */
>>
>> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
>> +package org.apache.royale.maven.extension;
>>
>>  import org.eclipse.aether.RepositoryException;
>>  import org.eclipse.aether.util.graph.transformer.ConflictResolver;
>> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
>> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
>> 
>>b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
>> FlexJsScopeSelector.java
>> similarity index 94%
>> rename from 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Harbs]

I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e. royalesdk.org/docs 
) using CNAME entries:
https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/ 


> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an organization
> and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
> several code repos.
> 
> The repo is:
> 
>  https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
> 
> When you push it becomes available here:
> 
>  https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
> 
> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
>  wrote:
> 
>> This should make things simpler:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>> m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
>> 61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>> 26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWlVQ%3D
>> rved=0
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
>>> 
>>> Get Outlook for 
>>> Android>> aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b
>>> 1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184=0KYVTdYNd
>>> hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Harbs 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
>>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
>>> 
>>> Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
>>> 
 On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
>>> wrote:
 
 Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
>>> content?
 I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
>>> Pages.
 Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
 
 Thanks,
 -Alex
 
 On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
 
> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> 
> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Alex,
>> 
>> +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf [1]
>> started
>> and move all his already gathered information in that structure
>>> where
>>> in
>> your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages or
>>> into
>> royale-asjs as Wiki ?
>> 
>> Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting point ?
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>> o
>> m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
>>> 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
>> 2
>> b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
>> 2
>> 
>>> 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D=0
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
>> 
>>> royale-docs is good.
>>> 
 On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>>> 
>>> wrote:
 
 I prefer royale-docs
 
 Thanks,
 Om
 
 On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 
>>> wrote:
 
> Per Infra:  "Pages are not enabled until we have some content to
>>> point
>>> to.
> Best thing I think is to create a new royale-pages repository (or
>>> whatever
> name) and I'll enable it on that - ensure some content in
>>> 'master'
>>> branch
> or 'master/docs' . those pages would then be available on
> apache.github.io/royale-pages (or whatever)"
> 
> Shall we create a royale-pages repo?  Anybody think it should
>>> have
>>> some
> other name?  "royale-documentation"?  I think it will hold our
>>> non-ASDoc
> user documentation.
> 
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
> 
> On 10/2/17, 11:42 AM, "Alex Harui" 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> I think I learned that Github Pages is not per-repo, it is one
>>> per
>>> Apache
>> Project.
>> 
>> It is a bit easier to have one repo per release product.
>>> Combining
>>> repos
>> for a release is a bit of extra work.  There should be examples
>>> in
>>> the
>> IDE-friendly artifact.  IMO, TourJS would have its own release
>>> schedule.
>> 
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>> 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Harbs]

I can’t find Olaf’s wiki. Remind me of the URL?

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Piotr Zarzycki  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alex. I'm just asking cause I was thinking where I can start with
> all of that. I believe that documentation is our true weak point.
> 
> Harbs do you have some plans in case of the docs ? Do you think that Olaf's
> work can be used ?
> 
> Piotr
> 
> 2017-10-04 8:54 GMT+02:00 Harbs  >:
> 
>> I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e.
>> royalesdk.org/docs  > >) using CNAME entries:
>> https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/ 
>> 
>> >> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an organization
>>> and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
>>> several code repos.
>>> 
>>> The repo is:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
>>> 
>>> When you push it becomes available here:
>>> 
>>> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
>>> 
>>> Of course, I could be wrong...
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> Muppirala"
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 This should make things simpler:
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
 m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=
>> 02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
 61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
 26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWl
>> VQ%3D
 rved=0
 
 Thanks,
 Om
 
 On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
 wrote:
 
> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
> 
> Get Outlook for
> Android> com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad9
>> 2538%7Cfa7b
> 1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184&
>> sdata=0KYVTdYNd
> hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
> 
> 
> From: Harbs 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
> 
> Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
> 
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
> content?
>> I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
> Pages.
>> Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
>> 
>>> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
>>> 
>>> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Alex,
 
 +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf [1]
 started
 and move all his already gathered information in that structure
> where
> in
 your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages or
> into
 royale-asjs as Wiki ?
 
 Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting point ?
 
 [1]
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
 o
 m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
 2
 b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
 2
 
> 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D=0
 
 Thanks,
 Piotr
 
 
 2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
 
> royale-docs is good.
> 
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> I prefer royale-docs
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Per Infra:  "Pages are not enabled until we have some content to
> point
> to.
>>> Best thing I think is to create a new royale-pages repository (or
> whatever
>>> name) and I'll enable it on that - ensure some content in
> 'master'
> branch
>>> or 'master/docs' . those pages would then 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Here you go -> https://github.com/ok-at-github/flexjs-docs/wiki

Thanks,
Piotr

2017-10-04 9:04 GMT+02:00 Harbs :

> I can’t find Olaf’s wiki. Remind me of the URL?
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Alex. I'm just asking cause I was thinking where I can start with
> > all of that. I believe that documentation is our true weak point.
> >
> > Harbs do you have some plans in case of the docs ? Do you think that
> Olaf's
> > work can be used ?
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-04 8:54 GMT+02:00 Harbs >:
> >
> >> I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e.
> >> royalesdk.org/docs  <
> http://royalesdk.org/docs >) using CNAME
> entries:
> >> https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-
> domain-with-github-pages/  articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/>
> >>  domain-with-github-pages/
> >>>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an
> organization
> >>> and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
> >>> several code repos.
> >>>
> >>> The repo is:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
> >>>
> >>> When you push it becomes available here:
> >>>
> >>> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
> >>>
> >>> Of course, I could be wrong...
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >> Muppirala"
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
>  This should make things simpler:
>  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>  m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=
> >> 02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
>  61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>  26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWl
> >> VQ%3D
>  rved=0
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Om
> 
>  On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
> >
> > Get Outlook for
> > Android >> com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad9
> >> 2538%7Cfa7b
> > 1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184&
> >> sdata=0KYVTdYNd
> > hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
> >
> > 
> > From: Harbs 
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
> >
> > Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
> >
> >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
> > content?
> >> I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
> > Pages.
> >> Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> >>>
> >>> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> > wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Alex,
> 
>  +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf
> [1]
>  started
>  and move all his already gathered information in that structure
> > where
> > in
>  your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages
> or
> > into
>  royale-asjs as Wiki ?
> 
>  Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting
> point ?
> 
>  [1]
>  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>  o
>  m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
> > 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
>  2
>  b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
>  2
> 
> > 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D&
> reserved=0
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Piotr
> 
> 
>  2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
> 
> > royale-docs is good.
> >
> >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> > 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I prefer royale-docs
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 

RE: FileReference implementation

[Yishay Weiss]

[2] https://github.com/yishayw/Examples

From: Yishay Weiss
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:22 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org; 
ngra...@idylog.com
Subject: RE: FileReference implementation

I added an example [1] for loading a file to my examples repo. At some point 
we’ll want to move this repo to Apache but you can browse this and other 
examples here [2] for the time being.

[1] https://github.com/yishayw/Examples/tree/FileProxy

From: Harbs
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:20 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org; 
ngra...@idylog.com
Subject: Re: FileReference implementation

No. You can read a file using the File APIs. In JS, you can get a Blob and 
ArrayBuffer The rough equivalent to ByteArray in Royale is BinaryData which 
wraps ArrayBuffer and deals with the views and you can get that from a file.

We’ve done work on abstracting those APIs. Yishay did the work on that, so 
he’ll have the best answer.

Harbs

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon  
> wrote:
>
> We use FileReference a lot in our Flex apps (data import functionalities, 
> export functionalities).
>
> With FP, it has been possible (since FP 11 if I am correct) to have local 
> read and write access (provided the access is "controlled" by a dialog that 
> the user has to validate) from the user's drive to the app (and vice versa).
>
> As I understand it, there is no provision in JS for app local file read 
> access : you have to upload the local file to the HTTP server, and then back 
> (download) into the app.
> However, there is local write access from the app to the local hard drive.
>
> Is this correct ?
>
> Nicolas Granon
>

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Thanks Alex. I'm just asking cause I was thinking where I can start with
all of that. I believe that documentation is our true weak point.

Harbs do you have some plans in case of the docs ? Do you think that Olaf's
work can be used ?

Piotr

2017-10-04 8:54 GMT+02:00 Harbs :

> I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e.
> royalesdk.org/docs ) using CNAME entries:
> https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/
>  >
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an organization
> > and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
> > several code repos.
> >
> > The repo is:
> >
> >  https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
> >
> > When you push it becomes available here:
> >
> >  https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong...
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala"
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> This should make things simpler:
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >> m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=
> 02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
> >> 61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> >> 26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWl
> VQ%3D
> >> rved=0
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
> >>>
> >>> Get Outlook for
> >>> Android com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> >>> aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad9
> 2538%7Cfa7b
> >>> 1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184&
> sdata=0KYVTdYNd
> >>> hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> From: Harbs 
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
> >>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
> >>>
> >>> Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
> >>>
>  On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
> >>> content?
>  I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
> >>> Pages.
>  Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  -Alex
> 
>  On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
> 
> > OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> >
> > On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> >>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf [1]
> >> started
> >> and move all his already gathered information in that structure
> >>> where
> >>> in
> >> your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages or
> >>> into
> >> royale-asjs as Wiki ?
> >>
> >> Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting point ?
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >> o
> >> m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
> >>> 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
> >> 2
> >> b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
> >> 2
> >>
> >>> 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D=0
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
> >>
> >>> royale-docs is good.
> >>>
>  On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  I prefer royale-docs
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Om
> 
>  On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > Per Infra:  "Pages are not enabled until we have some content to
> >>> point
> >>> to.
> > Best thing I think is to create a new royale-pages repository (or
> >>> whatever
> > name) and I'll enable it on that - ensure some content in
> >>> 'master'
> >>> branch
> > or 'master/docs' . those pages would then be available on
> > apache.github.io/royale-pages (or whatever)"
> >
> > Shall we create a royale-pages repo?  Anybody think it should
> >>> have
> >>> some
> > other name?  "royale-documentation"?  I think it will hold our
> >>> non-ASDoc
> > user documentation.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Alex
> 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Harbs]

Thanks.

The structure there and a lot of the content is great.

We should definitely copy it into docs. We should probably figure out the best 
way to write the docs and get started… ;-)

I just added a link to his wiki from the docs page for now.

Does anyone think we need a wiki for the docs repo?

Harbs
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Piotr Zarzycki  wrote:
> 
> Here you go -> https://github.com/ok-at-github/flexjs-docs/wiki
> 
> Thanks,
> Piotr
> 
> 2017-10-04 9:04 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
> 
>> I can’t find Olaf’s wiki. Remind me of the URL?
>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Alex. I'm just asking cause I was thinking where I can start with
>>> all of that. I believe that documentation is our true weak point.
>>> 
>>> Harbs do you have some plans in case of the docs ? Do you think that
>> Olaf's
>>> work can be used ?
>>> 
>>> Piotr
>>> 
>>> 2017-10-04 8:54 GMT+02:00 Harbs  harbs.li...@gmail.com>>:
>>> 
 I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e.
 royalesdk.org/docs  <
>> http://royalesdk.org/docs >) using CNAME
>> entries:
 https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-
>> domain-with-github-pages/ > articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/>
 > domain-with-github-pages/
> 
 
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an
>> organization
> and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
> several code repos.
> 
> The repo is:
> 
> https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
> 
> When you push it becomes available here:
> 
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
> 
> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
 Muppirala"
>  wrote:
> 
>> This should make things simpler:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
 https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>> m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=
 02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
>> 61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
 cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>> 26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWl
 VQ%3D
>> rved=0
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
>>> 
>>> Get Outlook for
>>> Android>> aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad9
 2538%7Cfa7b
>>> 1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184&
 sdata=0KYVTdYNd
>>> hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Harbs 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
>>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
>>> 
>>> Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
>>> 
 On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
>>> wrote:
 
 Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
>>> content?
 I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
>>> Pages.
 Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
 
 Thanks,
 -Alex
 
 On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
 
> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> 
> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Alex,
>> 
>> +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf
>> [1]
>> started
>> and move all his already gathered information in that structure
>>> where
>>> in
>> your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages
>> or
>>> into
>> royale-asjs as Wiki ?
>> 
>> Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting
>> point ?
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>> o
>> m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
>>> 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
>> 2
>> b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
>> 2
>> 
>>> 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D&
>> reserved=0
>> 
>> 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Harbs]

> (i.e. royalesdk.org/docs )

That should have been docs.royalesdk.org .

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Harbs  wrote:
> 
> I believe we can have it available at a different URL (i.e. 
> royalesdk.org/docs ) using CNAME entries:
> https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/ 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an organization
>> and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
>> several code repos.
>> 
>> The repo is:
>> 
>>  https://github.com/apache/royale-docs 
>> 
>> 
>> When you push it becomes available here:
>> 
>>  https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/ 
>> 
>> 
>> Of course, I could be wrong...
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com  on behalf 
>> of OmPrakash Muppirala"
>>  on behalf of 
>> bigosma...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> 
>>> This should make things simpler:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co 
>>> 
>>> m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
>>> 61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>>> 26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWlVQ%3D
>>> rved=0
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
 
 Get Outlook for 
 Android
 
 
 From: Harbs 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
 To: dev@royale.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
 
 Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
 
> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
 wrote:
> 
> Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
 content?
> I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
 Pages.
> Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> 
> On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
> 
>> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
>> 
>> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> 
>>> +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf [1]
>>> started
>>> and move all his already gathered information in that structure
 where
 in
>>> your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages or
 into
>>> royale-asjs as Wiki ?
>>> 
>>> Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting point ?
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
 https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>>> o
>>> m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
>>> 2
>>> b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
 cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
>>> 2
>>> 
 6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D=0
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
>>> 
 royale-docs is good.
 
> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
 
 wrote:
> 
> I prefer royale-docs
> 
> Thanks,
> Om
> 
> On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 
 wrote:
> 
>> Per Infra:  "Pages are not enabled until we have some content to
 point
 to.
>> Best thing I think is to create a new royale-pages repository (or
 whatever
>> name) and I'll enable it on that - ensure some content in
 'master'
 branch
>> or 'master/docs' . those pages would then be available on
>> apache.github.io/royale-pages (or whatever)"
>> 
>> Shall we create a royale-pages repo?  Anybody think it should
 have
 some
>> other name?  "royale-documentation"?  I think it will hold our
 non-ASDoc
>> user 

Re: Nightly Builds Available

[Carlos Rovira]

I think what Piotr propose is very good for organization, revision and
matching with issues. The workflow I know (and I think works pretty well)
is the following.

Notice that this method tries to always develop in branches and ensures
develop is always stable and green. That should be our mantra, and people
coming to Royale should recognize a good methodology of development like
other well stablished projects out there.

1.- we should have an issue number (i.e: [#:

> If you are committing any changes use for example: "my commit message
> (reference #issuenumber)" - Than we will see on github all commits under
> issue and can review it.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-03 17:20 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui :
>
> > I"m not sure what you mean by "use issue number".  Where am I supposed to
> > use it?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/3/17, 1:02 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
> >
> > >Alex,
> > >
> > >If you start renaming under some branch etc. please use issue number
> > >(reference #number) - we will have everything under our created issue.
> It
> > >help a lot with reviewing. I have found that is much worse for me
> looking
> > >into the emails than on github right now.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > >2017-10-03 7:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui :
> > >
> > >> OK, I merged packaging to develop.
> > >>
> > >> I think I see some consensus around the rename, so I will start on
> that
> > >> tomorrow in feature branches.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >> On 10/2/17, 12:29 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Alex,
> > >> >
> > >> >I think we should have separate branch for renaming. Packaging could
> be
> > >> >merge to develop, than we could create new branch for renaming. It
> > >>should
> > >> >be under folder feature/name - cause Maven build.a.o will pickup it
> > >> >automatically.
> > >> >
> > >> >That's how I think would be the best.
> > >> >
> > >> >Piotr
> > >> >
> > >> >2017-10-02 1:17 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui :
> > >> >
> > >> >> I'm tempted to just merge packaging into develop and start the
> rename
> > >> >>and
> > >> >> realize that things will likely be broken for several days.  Or we
> > >>can
> > >> >>do
> > >> >> the rename in branches.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'll poke at the packaging a bit more before merging.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Alex
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 10/1/17, 12:07 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Alex,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Are you going to merge packaging branch to develop and then start
> > >> >>renaming
> > >> >> >process ? I'm asking cause maybe it would be good idea to move
> that
> > >> >>branch
> > >> >> >under folder feature/packaging - We will have to this
> automatically
> > >> >>under
> > >> >> >control of pipeline.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Once renaming will start Maven build will tell us what is wrong
> > >>also.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Piotr
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >2017-10-01 20:03 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Alex,
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Thanks new nightly JS Only is working nicely with Moonshine
> along
> > >> >>with
> > >> >> >>my
> > >> >> >> fix. :)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Thank you!
> > >> >> >> Piotr
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> 2017-10-01 16:13 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui  >:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>> Yes, you are correct that the SWCs got corrupted.  I made one
> > >>change
> > >> >> >>>but
> > >> >> >>> won't have time to test until later today.  Feel free to grab
> the
> > >> >> >>>latest
> > >> >> >>> build and try again.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> Thanks,
> > >> >> >>> -Alex
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> On 9/30/17, 10:44 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
> > >>
> > >> >> >>>wrote:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> >I just made small experiment.
> > >> >> >>> >
> > >> >> >>> >1) I've downloaded FlexJS nightly using installer with Flash
> > >>Player
> > >> >> >>>23.
> > >> >> >>> >2) Create new project in Moonshine and build it with
> > >> >>-targets=JSFlex -
> > >> >> >>> >Build pass without the problem
> > >> >> >>> >3) I went to the folder 

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[Alex Harui]

I'm not sure we have that choice.  I think we are part of an organization
and have to use a separate repo.  Maybe that's better because we have
several code repos.

The repo is:

  https://github.com/apache/royale-docs

When you push it becomes available here:

  https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/

Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex

On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
 wrote:

>This should make things simpler:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fblog%2F2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e446
>61f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>26850111393184=6FAJXFa81NJY%2FG7FHdKpbnZq3N8arcYV1reW1uDWlVQ%3D
>rved=0
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
>>
>> Get Outlook for 
>>Android>aka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfa4e44661f04aca4c1a08d50ad92538%7Cfa7b
>>1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426850111393184=0KYVTdYNd
>>hKvtS%2B3Ny28BrSOUjdZWdxFcLXkyO4T3wY%3D=0>
>>
>> 
>> From: Harbs 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:46:14 PM
>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)
>>
>> Done. Do I need to make a gh-pages branch?
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Royale-docs has been created.  Can someone put in some initial
>>content?
>> > I'm buried in the rename and don't want to stop to figure out GH
>>Pages.
>> > Then we ask Infra to hook it up as our project's pages.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 10/3/17, 1:17 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
>> >>
>> >> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Alex,
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 for royale-docs. If I would like to make something like Olaf [1]
>> >>> started
>> >>> and move all his already gathered information in that structure
>>where
>> in
>> >>> your opinion guys should it go ? Into the royale-docs as gh pages or
>> into
>> >>> royale-asjs as Wiki ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Does anyone is against to have it Olaf's work as an starting point ?
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]
>> >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>> >>> o
>> >>> m%2Fok-at-github%2Fflexjs-docs%2Fwiki=02%7C01%7C%
>> 7C88a0571d57dc4f6ed
>> >>> 2
>> >>> b708d50a35c2c1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364261483757
>> >>> 2
>> >>> 
>>6455=KFmOxwgKRbgCW5LTjF0xy8UG%2B6wPjyc744lJ9KTdy00%3D=0
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Piotr
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2017-10-03 9:55 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
>> >>>
>>  royale-docs is good.
>> 
>> > On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>>  
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > I prefer royale-docs
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Om
>> >
>> > On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" 
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Per Infra:  "Pages are not enabled until we have some content to
>>  point
>>  to.
>> >> Best thing I think is to create a new royale-pages repository (or
>>  whatever
>> >> name) and I'll enable it on that - ensure some content in
>>'master'
>>  branch
>> >> or 'master/docs' . those pages would then be available on
>> >> apache.github.io/royale-pages (or whatever)"
>> >>
>> >> Shall we create a royale-pages repo?  Anybody think it should
>>have
>>  some
>> >> other name?  "royale-documentation"?  I think it will hold our
>>  non-ASDoc
>> >> user documentation.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 10/2/17, 11:42 AM, "Alex Harui" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think I learned that Github Pages is not per-repo, it is one
>>per
>>  Apache
>> >>> Project.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is a bit easier to have one repo per release product.
>>Combining
>>  repos
>> >>> for a release is a bit of extra work.  There should be examples
>>in
>>  the
>> >>> IDE-friendly artifact.  IMO, TourJS would have its own release
>>  schedule.
>> >>>
>> >>> My 2 cents,
>> >>> -Alex
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10/2/17, 11:32 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>> >>>
>>  I’d like to setup an example repo so it’ll build a website
>>(i.e.
>>  Github
>>  Pages) where the samples could be run. It seems similar to
>>tourjs
>>  in a
>>  way, but different. “Examples” to me is more like a tutorial on
>>  how to
>>  use Royale while tourjs is more of a reference of the
>>components.
>>  They
>>  seem separate and 

RE: FileReference implementation

[Idylog - Nicolas Granon]

Thank you, Yishay.

Nicolas Granon



> -Message d'origine-
> De : Yishay Weiss [mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 10:23
> À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngra...@idylog.com; dev@royale.apache.org;
> ngra...@idylog.com
> Objet : RE: FileReference implementation
> 
> [2] https://github.com/yishayw/Examples
> 
> From: Yishay Weiss
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:22 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org;
> ngra...@idylog.com
> Subject: RE: FileReference implementation
> 
> I added an example [1] for loading a file to my examples repo. At some
> point we’ll want to move this repo to Apache but you can browse this
> and other examples here [2] for the time being.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/yishayw/Examples/tree/FileProxy
> 
> From: Harbs
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:20 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org;
> ngra...@idylog.com
> Subject: Re: FileReference implementation
> 
> No. You can read a file using the File APIs. In JS, you can get a Blob
> and ArrayBuffer The rough equivalent to ByteArray in Royale is
> BinaryData which wraps ArrayBuffer and deals with the views and you can
> get that from a file.
> 
> We’ve done work on abstracting those APIs. Yishay did the work on that,
> so he’ll have the best answer.
> 
> Harbs
> 
> > On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>  wrote:
> >
> > We use FileReference a lot in our Flex apps (data import
> functionalities, export functionalities).
> >
> > With FP, it has been possible (since FP 11 if I am correct) to have
> local read and write access (provided the access is "controlled" by a
> dialog that the user has to validate) from the user's drive to the app
> (and vice versa).
> >
> > As I understand it, there is no provision in JS for app local file
> read access : you have to upload the local file to the HTTP server, and
> then back (download) into the app.
> > However, there is local write access from the app to the local hard
> drive.
> >
> > Is this correct ?
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> 

RE: FileReference implementation

[Yishay Weiss]

I added an example [1] for loading a file to my examples repo. At some point 
we’ll want to move this repo to Apache but you can browse this and other 
examples here [2] for the time being.

[1] https://github.com/yishayw/Examples/tree/FileProxy

From: Harbs
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:20 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org; 
ngra...@idylog.com
Subject: Re: FileReference implementation

No. You can read a file using the File APIs. In JS, you can get a Blob and 
ArrayBuffer The rough equivalent to ByteArray in Royale is BinaryData which 
wraps ArrayBuffer and deals with the views and you can get that from a file.

We’ve done work on abstracting those APIs. Yishay did the work on that, so 
he’ll have the best answer.

Harbs

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon  
> wrote:
>
> We use FileReference a lot in our Flex apps (data import functionalities, 
> export functionalities).
>
> With FP, it has been possible (since FP 11 if I am correct) to have local 
> read and write access (provided the access is "controlled" by a dialog that 
> the user has to validate) from the user's drive to the app (and vice versa).
>
> As I understand it, there is no provision in JS for app local file read 
> access : you have to upload the local file to the HTTP server, and then back 
> (download) into the app.
> However, there is local write access from the app to the local hard drive.
>
> Is this correct ?
>
> Nicolas Granon
>

Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name

[Harbs]

Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different release 
packages.

For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no need to 
install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in outputting pure 
JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need much more than the 
compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have 
different compiler defaults.

The different release packages might have different names.


> On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and skip the JS 
> part?
> 
> 
> -Mark K
> 
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product names)
>> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
>> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to dictate
>> if we want to target one or more outputs.
>> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that could
>> output JS, WASM, SWF, )
>> 
>> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their solutions
>> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read about
>> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
>> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
>> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
>> 
>> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove "JS",
>> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
>> 
>> That's my 2ctn
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Carlos
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
>>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the naming of
>>> the product(s) of this project.
>>> 
>>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think is an
>>> excellent suggestion:
>>> 
>>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
>>> IDE-friendly release
>>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another
>>> for folks not interested in SWF.  In the packaging branch I have most of
>>> that working.
>>> 
>>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other one
>>> Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some folks to mean "Royale
>>> for JS".  The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs- and
>>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-. The project name would definitely
>>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
>>> markets."
>>> 
>>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
>>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
>>> 
>>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product (e.g.
>>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should name the
>>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
>>> product with the same name as the project and then have other products from
>>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up with a
>>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
>>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head, just
>>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> EdB
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>> 
>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>> 
>>> T. 06-51952295
>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Carlos Rovira
>> 
>> Director General
>> 
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> 
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> 
>> 
>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! 
>> 
>> 
>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
>> proceda a su destrucción.
>> 
>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos
>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras
>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
>> necesaria.

Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name

[Mark Kessler]

Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and skip the JS part?


-Mark K

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product names)
> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to dictate
> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that could
> output JS, WASM, SWF, )
>
> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their solutions
> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read about
> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
>
> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove "JS",
> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
>
> That's my 2ctn
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the naming of
>> the product(s) of this project.
>>
>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think is an
>> excellent suggestion:
>>
>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
>> IDE-friendly release
>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another
>> for folks not interested in SWF.  In the packaging branch I have most of
>> that working.
>>
>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other one
>> Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some folks to mean "Royale
>> for JS".  The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs- and
>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-. The project name would definitely
>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
>> markets."
>>
>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
>>
>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product (e.g.
>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should name the
>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
>> product with the same name as the project and then have other products from
>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up with a
>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head, just
>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 
>
> Carlos Rovira
>
> Director General
>
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>
>
> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! 
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
> proceda a su destrucción.
>
> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos
> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras
> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> necesaria.

[Royale] Using nightly builds

[Idylog - Nicolas Granon]

I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".

Could you please confirm that I got it right ?

1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/

2 Get the build from  the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the -bin.zip file

3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for the last 
release 0.8)

4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify the 
asconfig file)

Is this the correct way ?
Is there anything else that I should also get from the apacheflexbuild site ? 
(compiler ?...)

Thank you,

Nicolas Granon




> -Message d'origine-
> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> 
> Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> release packages.
> 
> For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no
> need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in
> outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need
> much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> should probably have different compiler defaults.
> 
> The different release packages might have different names.
> 
> 
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
>  wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and skip
> the JS part?
> >
> >
> > -Mark K
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> names)
> >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> dictate
> >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> could
> >> output JS, WASM, SWF, )
> >>
> >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> solutions
> >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
> about
> >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> make
> >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >>
> >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> "JS",
> >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >>
> >> That's my 2ctn
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin :
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> 'packaging'
> >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> naming of
> >>> the product(s) of this project.
> >>>
> >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> is an
> >>> excellent suggestion:
> >>>
> >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >>> IDE-friendly release
> >>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
> another
> >>> for folks not interested in SWF.  In the packaging branch I have
> most of
> >>> that working.
> >>>
> >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> other one
> >>> Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> "Royale
> >>> for JS".  The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-
> and
> >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-. The project name would
> definitely
> >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> >>> markets."
> >>>
> >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >>>
> >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> product (e.g.
> >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> name the
> >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have
> a
> >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> products from
> >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> with a
> >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> various
> >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> head, just
> >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> EdB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>>
> >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>>
> >>> T. 06-51952295
> >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >> Director General
> >>
> >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>
> >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! 
> >>
> >>
> >> Este 

Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name

[Mark Kessler]

An installer type thing?

-Mark K



> Maybe it is possible to have just one package, but different install scripts 
> ? (full, swf only, js only ?)
> For people like me (app developers) it makes sense.
> However, I'm not sure that a no-component install will be of interest for 
> much people...

> Nicolas Granon

Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Nicolas,

I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course since
this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup -targets=
JSFlex.

Piotr

2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon :

> I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
>
> Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
>
> 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> cloudapp.net:8080/job/
>
> 2 Get the build from  the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the -bin.zip
> file
>
> 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for the
> last release 0.8)
>
> 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify the
> asconfig file)
>
> Is this the correct way ?
> Is there anything else that I should also get from the apacheflexbuild
> site ? (compiler ?...)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> >
> > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> > release packages.
> >
> > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no
> > need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in
> > outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need
> > much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> > should probably have different compiler defaults.
> >
> > The different release packages might have different names.
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and skip
> > the JS part?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark K
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > >  wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> > names)
> > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> > dictate
> > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> > could
> > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, )
> > >>
> > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> > solutions
> > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
> > about
> > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> > >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> > make
> > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > >>
> > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> > "JS",
> > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > >>
> > >> That's my 2ctn
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Carlos
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin :
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > 'packaging'
> > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > naming of
> > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > >>>
> > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> > is an
> > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > >>>
> > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > >>> IDE-friendly release
> > >>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
> > another
> > >>> for folks not interested in SWF.  In the packaging branch I have
> > most of
> > >>> that working.
> > >>>
> > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> > other one
> > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> > "Royale
> > >>> for JS".  The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-
> > and
> > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-. The project name would
> > definitely
> > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> > >>> markets."
> > >>>
> > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> > >>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > product (e.g.
> > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> > name the
> > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have
> > a
> > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> > products from
> > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> > with a
> > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> > various
> > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> > head, just
> > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, 

RE: [Royale] Using nightly builds

[Idylog - Nicolas Granon]

No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct understanding 
*before* I begin !
Thanks a lot

Nicolas Granon




> -Message d'origine-
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59
> À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngra...@idylog.com
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course
> since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup -
> targets= JSFlex.
> 
> Piotr
> 
> 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> :
> 
> > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> >
> > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> >
> > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> >
> > 2 Get the build from  the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
> > -bin.zip file
> >
> > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for
> > the last release 0.8)
> >
> > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify
> > the asconfig file)
> >
> > Is this the correct way ?
> > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> apacheflexbuild
> > site ? (compiler ?...)
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Message d'origine-
> > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS]
> > > project vs. project name
> > >
> > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> > > release packages.
> > >
> > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
> have
> > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
> > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all,
> > > they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some typedef
> > > swcs. Different packages should probably have different compiler
> defaults.
> > >
> > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and
> skip
> > > the JS part?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Mark K
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
> > > >> product
> > > names)
> > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params
> to
> > > dictate
> > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package
> > > >> that
> > > could
> > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, )
> > > >>
> > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
> > > >> their
> > > solutions
> > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to
> > > >> read
> > > about
> > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't want
> > > >> those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> > > make
> > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > > >>
> > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to
> > > >> remove
> > > "JS",
> > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > > >>
> > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >>
> > > >> Carlos
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin :
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > > 'packaging'
> > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > > naming of
> > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I
> > > >>> think
> > > is an
> > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > > >>> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
> migrating
> > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > another
> > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF.  In the packaging branch I
> have
> > > most of
> > > >>> that working.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and
> > > >>> the
> > > other one
> > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some folks to
> > > >>> mean
> > > "Royale
> > > >>> for JS".  The package names would be
> > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-
> > > and
> > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-. The project name would
> > > definitely
> > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
> > > >>> target markets."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but
> > > >>> 

Re: [royale-compiler] 09/20: change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Alex,

If we would like to point to the issue in commit message from one repo
(royale-compiler) to the other one (royale-asjs) - it should look:

"Commit message (reference apache/royale-asjs#17) - Commit message to
royale-compiler, but issue is raised in royale-asjs.

If some day in royale-compiler we will raise issue number 17 those commits
may point to that.

Thanks,
Piotr


2017-10-05 0:35 GMT+02:00 :

> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> aharui pushed a commit to branch feature/rename
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-compiler.git
>
> commit ff91950a9a5b41c5dac21cca06f91c0a01a8cd23
> Author: Alex Harui 
> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 3 11:42:24 2017 -0700
>
> change more flexjs to royale per Issue #17
> ---
>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java  | 6
> +++---
>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java | 2
> +-
>  .../royale/maven/{flexjs => }/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java| 2
> +-
>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASDocMojo.java | 2
> +-
>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileASMojo.java| 2
> +-
>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileAppMojo.java   | 2
> +-
>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileJSMojo.java| 2
> +-
>  .../src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/CompileTypedefsMojo.java  | 2
> +-
>  8 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
> FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> similarity index 92%
> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> index 4ae6fdd..d5707d7 100644
> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsLanguageSupport.java
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>   * limitations under the License.
>   */
>
> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
> +package org.apache.royale.maven.extension;
>
>  import org.apache.maven.repository.internal.LanguageSupport;
>  import org.codehaus.plexus.component.annotations.Component;
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ import javax.inject.Named;
>   * Created by christoferdutz on 18.07.16.
>   */
>  @Named
> -@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "flexjs" )
> +@Component( role = LanguageSupport.class, hint = "royale" )
>  public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements LanguageSupport {
>
>  private static final FlexJsScopeSelector SCOPE_SELECTOR = new
> FlexJsScopeSelector();
> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ public class FlexJsLanguageSupport implements
> LanguageSupport {
>
>  @Override
>  public String getLanguageName() {
> -return "flexjs";
> +return "royale";
>  }
>
>  @Override
> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
> FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> similarity index 94%
> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> index dfa3f41..18f6013 100644
> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeDeriver.java
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>   * limitations under the License.
>   */
>
> -package org.apache.royale.maven.flexjs.extension;
> +package org.apache.royale.maven.extension;
>
>  import org.eclipse.aether.RepositoryException;
>  import org.eclipse.aether.util.graph.transformer.ConflictResolver;
> diff --git a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/maven/extension/
> FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> similarity index 94%
> rename from royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> rename to royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> index f44a597..98a516f 100644
> --- a/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/flexjs/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> +++ b/royale-maven-extension/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/
> maven/extension/FlexJsScopeSelector.java
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>   * limitations under the License.
>   */
>
>