Re: SVG for Flash (was Re: How to get assets (svg, png,...) inside *-js.swc and *-swf.swc libraries)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I think supporting SVG natively is the best option going foward.

It should be possible to utilize something like AS3SVGRenderer to support
SVG rendering in Royale.  [1]

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Om

[1] https://github.com/lucaslorentz/AS3SVGRenderer

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> IMO, this deserves its own thread.
>
> I think there are several choices. I've not ever really analyzed and
> compared SVG to SWF, but one possibility is to write an SVG Interpreter in
> ActionScript that translates SVG into flash.display.Graphic calls.  Of
> course, that sounds like a really big project, which it probably is, but
> with PAYG and DAYG (do as you go) it seems like it might be the true final
> answer because then ActionScript that you write to manipulate the SVG at
> runtime can work.  More on this later.
>
> I think the only choice that currently works is to embed the SVG in a SWF
> with the Flex compiler.  I don't see support for SVG transcoding in the
> Royale compiler, but I could have missed it.
>
> Another option is to try to transform SVG back to FXG.  I think Om wrote a
> transform from FXG to SVG.
>
> Then there are options that transform SVG to PNG or other non-vector image
> formats.
>
> It would be easier on the runtime to have the compiler do the
> transformation, but I'm tempted to have the ActionScript code do it
> because then the asset that is deployed and loaded is the same SVG.  You
> don't have to copy an SVG file for JS and an FXG or SWF or some other file
> for Flash.
>
> I mentioned in another thread that for SWF, we first want to get the
> bounding boxes right, then worry about the pixels.  That's because, until
> customers really demand it, it may not matter how good the SWF output is
> as long as it can be used to test your business logic.  You may never
> deploy the SWF version, but it should save you time in catching errors in
> your code but I know I would want the UI to layout close enough to the JS
> version that I don't have to go and tweak a lot of the UI after I'm done
> testing on Flash/AIR.
>
> So, with PAYG/DAYG, the initial implementation of an SVG interpreter would
> just draw a filled rectangle of the size specified in the SVG.  Then over
> time as needed we would add beads for each SVG tag.
>
> Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.  Definitely want to hear from Om and
> anyone else who has spent more time around this topic.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 2/26/18, 1:45 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >many thanks, just test and this is working fine! :)
> >
> >One more thing to think about now that we get to this point. In order for
> >SWF and JS versions to share the same assets...should we move swf to the
> >same folder than "assets"?...or maybe put assets (and maybe CSS) directly
> >on "target" folder? So any output could grab a the same assets folder (or
> >in other words, to avoid copying 2, 3 or more versions of the same files)
> >
> >I'm thinking in make JS and SWF version and try to match both, but for
> >this
> >I need to know how I can load the SVG from Flash. Right now is referenced
> >in CSS, but don't know if SWF version can handle as well SVGs in CSS. If
> >is
> >possible that would be great since will make the creation of themes more
> >easy
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-02-26 19:36 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >> OK, I just pushed a change for this in vivid-ui-set branch.  It seemed
> >>to
> >> work for me.
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C74ac42b84dbb4bcd7b8508
> >>d57d624f87%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63655278355713391
> >>7=FNLpJCEUmENigzmOpOexcH446lX%2BDhGag1%2FmrjcP3V0%3D=0
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Page linked to from license page no longer exists

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I already pushed a fix for this.

Thanks,
Om

On Feb 17, 2018 8:50 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This page has quite a few different variations:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_maps_of_the_United_States
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_maps_of_the_United_States
> >
>
> > On Feb 17, 2018, at 6:46 PM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What about this one?
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_US_Map_(
> states_only).svg#file <https://commons.wikimedia.
> org/wiki/File:Blank_US_Map_(states_only).svg#file>
> >
> >> On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:49 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com
> <mailto:bigosma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll look into it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> On Feb 16, 2018 8:35 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.invalid>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bummer.  Looks like WikiPedia decided to remove it.  I think Om
> >>> contributed that, so I guess we should let him decide whether to find
> >>> another source for the data or remove the example.
> >>>
> >>> My 2 cents,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 2/16/18, 3:17 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com  cottag...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi:
> >>>>
> >>>> on Welcome/licenses.md there is this passage:
> >>>>
> >>>> The map coordinates in examples/native/USStatesMap/src/MapCoords.as
> were
> >>>> placed into the Public Domain by its author. See:
> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=>
> >>> https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipe
> >>>> dia.org <http://dia.org/>%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AUSA_CIA_Map.svg%
> 23file=02%
> >>> 7C01%7Caharui%40ado
> >>>> be.com <http://be.com/>%7C8c30db66c9c448a2a77708d5752ed58e%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>> ce
> >>>> e1%7C0%7C0%7C636543766369921734=EVjU7uzApzAiAIf8CoayF6n7kP6LQs
> >>> WtxHHZ
> >>>> zqTNb5M%3D=0
> >>>>
> >>>> When I click that link I get a message that the file has been deleted.
> >>>> Since this is license-related, do we need to hunt out a replacement
> >>>> source?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Andrew Wetmore
> >>>>
> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14 <https://na01.safelinks.
> protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14>
> >>> .
> >>>> blogspot.com <http://blogspot.com/>%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.
> com <http://40adobe.com/>%
> >>> 7C8c30db66c9c448a2a77708
> >>>> d5752ed58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>> 7C636543766369921734
> >>>> =dwjkXL%2BDCfUpUYMLL9B4Mhpw%2BIjT%
> 2FlNEeEkpDMgMX8M%3D=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Re: How to install Nightly build through NPM

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I think we should.  With the usual disclaimers etc.

Although please make sure this works first :)

Thanks,
Om


On Feb 17, 2018 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cool! I didn’t know you could do that.

Should we add this info to the “developer” documentation?

Harbs

> On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:48 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> You can just do npm install -g  
> That should install the nightly for you.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Feb 16, 2018 5:49 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Is it possible to install Nightly build of Royale through NPM ? I need to
>> check some scenario with Moonshine on Mac platform.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>

Re: Page linked to from license page no longer exists

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I'll look into it.

Thanks,
Om

On Feb 16, 2018 8:35 AM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

> Bummer.  Looks like WikiPedia decided to remove it.  I think Om
> contributed that, so I guess we should let him decide whether to find
> another source for the data or remove the example.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 2/16/18, 3:17 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>
> >Hi:
> >
> >on Welcome/licenses.md there is this passage:
> >
> >The map coordinates in examples/native/USStatesMap/src/MapCoords.as were
> >placed into the Public Domain by its author. See:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipe
> >dia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AUSA_CIA_Map.svg%23file=02%
> 7C01%7Caharui%40ado
> >be.com%7C8c30db66c9c448a2a77708d5752ed58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> ce
> >e1%7C0%7C0%7C636543766369921734=EVjU7uzApzAiAIf8CoayF6n7kP6LQs
> WtxHHZ
> >zqTNb5M%3D=0
> >
> >When I click that link I get a message that the file has been deleted.
> >Since this is license-related, do we need to hunt out a replacement
> >source?
> >
> >--
> >Andrew Wetmore
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14
> .
> >blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C8c30db66c9c448a2a77708
> >d5752ed58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636543766369921734
> >=dwjkXL%2BDCfUpUYMLL9B4Mhpw%2BIjT%2FlNEeEkpDMgMX8M%3D=0
>
>

Re: How to install Nightly build through NPM

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

You can just do npm install -g  
That should install the nightly for you.

Thanks,
Om

On Feb 16, 2018 5:49 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> Is it possible to install Nightly build of Royale through NPM ? I need to
> check some scenario with Moonshine on Mac platform.
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Re: Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 15, 2018 7:15 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have added a page in the help docs describing this cool tool.



Thanks for taking care of that.

Sorry - like a typical developer, I started writing documentation but ended
up writing a tool 


On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Very good idea!
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> So cool Om! Great!
>> I'm very busy right now with lots of fronts, but let me know if you need
>> help from me in order to create the blog post.
>> You can contact me offline in order to support in this task as much as
you
>> can
>> thanks for making this!
>>
>> 2018-02-15 10:20 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Very cool! Great initiative!
>> >
>> > I’ll try to give it a spin later.
>> >
>> > Is there a way of creating different templates for the “new” command?
>> >
>> > BTW, it would be really great to try to stick to dog-fooding to have as
>> > many samples of Royale use as possible.
>> >
>> > This tool can be written in ActionScript and compiled for node.js using
>> > Royale.
>> >
>> > Harbs
>> >
>> > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:16 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <omup...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
>> > > realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built
>> the
>> > > Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and
>> the
>> > > angular cli projects.
>> > >
>> > > Here are the details:
>> > >
>> > > *To Install: *
>> > > npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
>> > > npm install @apache-royale/cli -g
>> > >
>> > > After installation:
>> > >
>> > > *Help *
>> > > royale help
>> > >
>> > > *Setup *
>> > > royale new  my-royale-app
>> > > cd my-royale-app
>> > >
>> > > This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *Run in debug mode *
>> > > royale serve:debug
>> > >
>> > > Compiles the project in debug mode
>> > > Compiles with source map option
>> > > Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug
>> directory
>> > > Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
>> > > Listens to src folder
>> > > When any file changes, it will recompile the app
>> > > Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application
>> > >
>> > > *Run in release mode *
>> > > royale serve:release
>> > >
>> > > Compiles the project in release mode
>> > > Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
>> > > directory
>> > > Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Om
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>


--
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 15, 2018 1:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:

So cool Om! Great!
I'm very busy right now with lots of fronts, but let me know if you need
help from me in order to create the blog post.
You can contact me offline in order to support in this task as much as you
can
thanks for making this!


Yes, that is what I plan on doing next.

Thanks,
Om


2018-02-15 10:20 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:

> Very cool! Great initiative!
>
> I’ll try to give it a spin later.
>
> Is there a way of creating different templates for the “new” command?
>
> BTW, it would be really great to try to stick to dog-fooding to have as
> many samples of Royale use as possible.
>
> This tool can be written in ActionScript and compiled for node.js using
> Royale.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:16 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <omup...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
> > realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built
the
> > Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and the
> > angular cli projects.
> >
> > Here are the details:
> >
> > *To Install: *
> > npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
> > npm install @apache-royale/cli -g
> >
> > After installation:
> >
> > *Help *
> > royale help
> >
> > *Setup *
> > royale new  my-royale-app
> > cd my-royale-app
> >
> > This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml
> >
> >
> > *Run in debug mode *
> > royale serve:debug
> >
> > Compiles the project in debug mode
> > Compiles with source map option
> > Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug
directory
> > Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
> > Listens to src folder
> > When any file changes, it will recompile the app
> > Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application
> >
> > *Run in release mode *
> > royale serve:release
> >
> > Compiles the project in release mode
> > Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
> > directory
> > Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001
> >
> >
> > Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
>
>


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

Re: Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 15, 2018 1:20 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very cool! Great initiative!

I’ll try to give it a spin later.

Is there a way of creating different templates for the “new” command?


Sure,  it's possible.  There is a template directory that gets shipped with
the cli tool.  We could add more starter apps and let user select one of
them with a switch.

The other option is to directly download an app from a github repo.



BTW, it would be really great to try to stick to dog-fooding to have as
many samples of Royale use as possible.

This tool can be written in ActionScript and compiled for node.js using
Royale.


That has been on my to do list.  Others are welcome to start porting these
node/npm related scripts to AS.

Thanks,
Om


Harbs

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:16 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <omup...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
> realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built the
> Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and the
> angular cli projects.
>
> Here are the details:
>
> *To Install: *
> npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
> npm install @apache-royale/cli -g
>
> After installation:
>
> *Help *
> royale help
>
> *Setup *
> royale new  my-royale-app
> cd my-royale-app
>
> This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml
>
>
> *Run in debug mode *
> royale serve:debug
>
> Compiles the project in debug mode
> Compiles with source map option
> Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug directory
> Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
> Listens to src folder
> When any file changes, it will recompile the app
> Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application
>
> *Run in release mode *
> royale serve:release
>
> Compiles the project in release mode
> Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
> directory
> Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001
>
>
> Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Om

Re: Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I will leave this Pull Request here, in case anyone wants to review it.
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/pull/118/files

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:21 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> BTW, I have tested this on Windows: power shell, command prompt and git
> bash.  They all work fine.
> Someone needs to test on Mac and tell me what happens :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:16 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <omup...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
>> realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built the
>> Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and the
>> angular cli projects.
>>
>> Here are the details:
>>
>> *To Install: *
>> npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
>> npm install @apache-royale/cli -g
>>
>> After installation:
>>
>> *Help *
>> royale help
>>
>> *Setup *
>> royale new  my-royale-app
>> cd my-royale-app
>>
>>  This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml
>>
>>
>> *Run in debug mode *
>> royale serve:debug
>>
>>  Compiles the project in debug mode
>>  Compiles with source map option
>>  Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug
>> directory
>>  Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
>>  Listens to src folder
>>  When any file changes, it will recompile the app
>>  Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application
>>
>> *Run in release mode *
>> royale serve:release
>>
>>  Compiles the project in release mode
>>  Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
>> directory
>>  Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001
>>
>>
>> Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

BTW, I have tested this on Windows: power shell, command prompt and git
bash.  They all work fine.
Someone needs to test on Mac and tell me what happens :-)

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:16 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <omup...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
> realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built the
> Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and the
> angular cli projects.
>
> Here are the details:
>
> *To Install: *
> npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
> npm install @apache-royale/cli -g
>
> After installation:
>
> *Help *
> royale help
>
> *Setup *
> royale new  my-royale-app
> cd my-royale-app
>
>  This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml
>
>
> *Run in debug mode *
> royale serve:debug
>
>  Compiles the project in debug mode
>  Compiles with source map option
>  Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug directory
>  Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
>  Listens to src folder
>  When any file changes, it will recompile the app
>  Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application
>
> *Run in release mode *
> royale serve:release
>
>  Compiles the project in release mode
>  Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
> directory
>  Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001
>
>
> Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>

Introducing Royale CLI tool

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

As I was trying to write a `Setting up Royale with npm `blog post, I
realized that things could be much easier for npm users.  So, I built the
Royale CLI tool.  It takes inspiration from the create-react-app and the
angular cli projects.

Here are the details:

*To Install: *
npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
npm install @apache-royale/cli -g

After installation:

*Help *
royale help

*Setup *
royale new  my-royale-app
cd my-royale-app

 This creates a simple app: my-royale-app/src/Main.mxml


*Run in debug mode *
royale serve:debug

 Compiles the project in debug mode
 Compiles with source map option
 Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-debug directory
 Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3000
 Listens to src folder
 When any file changes, it will recompile the app
 Automatically reloads the browser to show the updated application

*Run in release mode *
royale serve:release

 Compiles the project in release mode
 Starts a http server and serves the files from the bin/js-release
directory
 Opens the default browser and navigates to http://localhost:3001


Please test and provide feedback.  It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Om

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.1 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> The steps that publish NPM are in releasecandidate.xml.  It does not muck
> with the packages.  It looked like your change was to the package.json
> that is already in the package.
>

Yes that is correct.  When publishing, the publish script uses the raw
package.json file.
Look here:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/release/0.9.1/npm/release-scripts/publish.js#L66

So, all you need to do is keep the tarball as is, but get my latest changes
on release/0.9.1 before publishing to npm.

Please try that and let me know how it goes.

If this does not fix the issue, the next release should.  But lets give
this a shot, at least.

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/12/18, 12:08 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 12, 2018 11:58 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >On 2/12/18, 10:42 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala"
> ><omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Feb 12, 2018 10:13 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package.
> >>I
> >>thought you tweaked it before publishing.
> >>
> >>Am I wrong about that?
> >>
> >>
> >>That is correct.   Are you planning on doing the same this time?
> >
> >I'm thinking of publishing the js-swf package as-is and see if anybody
> >complains.  If you want to do whatever you did last time, that's ok with
> >me.  My goal is to spend the least amount of time possible being an RM and
> >create new features and fixes so even more folks will want to grab the
> >next release after this one.  I'm ok with rough edges as long as we
> >incrementally make things better.
> >
> >
> >Instead you could pull my last commit and then run my npm publish script.
> >That will overwrite the one that is in the tarball during the publish
> >process.
> >
> >I want to take this opportunity to make sure the npm publish script works
> >seamlessly for release managers as well.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >
> >>
> >>On 2/12/18, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>Muppirala"
> >><omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Feb 12, 2018 8:24 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Voters,
> >>>
> >>>Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
> >>>"better than last release and not illegal".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The npm install that worked in the last release will be broken by this
> >>>new
> >>>release.  Please explain how this is better than last release?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Om
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The cost of a new RC is
> >>>non-trivial.  We have some users who are asking for help to port their
> >>>apps against a deadline.  To me, that is way more important than fixing
> >>>js-swf for NPM in this release because js-swf was broken in the prior
> >>>release.  This release is "better than the last release and not
> >>>illegal".
> >>>The next release is will be in 30 days or less.
> >>>
> >>>Someone hand-patched package.json and provided it on npm in the last
> >>>release.  It can probably be done for this release.  I'll bet there will
> >>>be a big bug in every release for a while.  As long as it isn't a major
> >>>regression, we should ship it and move on.
> >>>
> >>>My 2 cents,
> >>>-Alex
> >>>
> >>>On 2/12/18, 1:50 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>BTW, I noticed that I’m getting an error near the end of my ant build.
> >>>>This does not cause the “general bull” to fail:
> >>>>
> >>>>check-playerglobal-home:
> >>>> [echo] PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/libs/player
> >>>> [echo] playerglobal.version is 11.1
> >>>> [echo] playerglobal.swc is
> >>>>/Apache/frameworks/libs/player/11

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.1 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 12, 2018 11:58 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:



On 2/12/18, 10:42 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 2018 10:13 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package.  I
>thought you tweaked it before publishing.
>
>Am I wrong about that?
>
>
>That is correct.   Are you planning on doing the same this time?

I'm thinking of publishing the js-swf package as-is and see if anybody
complains.  If you want to do whatever you did last time, that's ok with
me.  My goal is to spend the least amount of time possible being an RM and
create new features and fixes so even more folks will want to grab the
next release after this one.  I'm ok with rough edges as long as we
incrementally make things better.


Instead you could pull my last commit and then run my npm publish script.
That will overwrite the one that is in the tarball during the publish
process.

I want to take this opportunity to make sure the npm publish script works
seamlessly for release managers as well.

Thanks,
Om



-Alex


>
>On 2/12/18, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
><omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 12, 2018 8:24 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Voters,
>>
>>Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
>>"better than last release and not illegal".
>>
>>
>>
>>The npm install that worked in the last release will be broken by this
>>new
>>release.  Please explain how this is better than last release?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Om
>>
>>
>>The cost of a new RC is
>>non-trivial.  We have some users who are asking for help to port their
>>apps against a deadline.  To me, that is way more important than fixing
>>js-swf for NPM in this release because js-swf was broken in the prior
>>release.  This release is "better than the last release and not illegal".
>>The next release is will be in 30 days or less.
>>
>>Someone hand-patched package.json and provided it on npm in the last
>>release.  It can probably be done for this release.  I'll bet there will
>>be a big bug in every release for a while.  As long as it isn't a major
>>regression, we should ship it and move on.
>>
>>My 2 cents,
>>-Alex
>>
>>On 2/12/18, 1:50 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, I noticed that I’m getting an error near the end of my ant build.
>>>This does not cause the “general bull” to fail:
>>>
>>>check-playerglobal-home:
>>> [echo] PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/libs/player
>>> [echo] playerglobal.version is 11.1
>>> [echo] playerglobal.swc is
>>>/Apache/frameworks/libs/player/11.1/playerglobal.swc
>>>
>>>check-air-home:
>>> [echo] AIR_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/AIRSDK_Compiler
>>>
>>>check-compiler-home:
>>>
>>>check-compile-env:
>>> [echo] OS: Mac OS X / 10.12.6 / x86_64
>>> [echo] VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM / 25.152-b16
>>> [echo] Java: 1.8.0_152
>>> [echo] Ant: Apache Ant(TM) version 1.10.2 compiled on February 3
>>>2018 Ant Java Version: 1.8
>>>
>>>prepare:
>>>
>>>compile:
>>>
>>>flat-ui-icons:
>>> [java]
>>> [java] Error: Missing builtin type Object
>>> [java]
>>> [java]
>>> [java] Error: Unable to build SWF
>>>/Apache/royale-asjs/frameworks/fonts/flat-ui-icons-regular.swf
>>> [java]
>>> [java]
>>> [java] Java Result: 2
>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does this require a new rc or can the script just be updated?
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 10:08 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>>>>><bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've pushed in a fix for the broken js-swf npm installation process.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithu
>>>>>b
>>>>>.
>>>>>com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommit%2Fb9a1b32975cc755475ade761f36993ef
>>>>>c
>>>>>8
>>>>>f1f05

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.1 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 12, 2018 8:24 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

Voters,

Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
"better than last release and not illegal".



The npm install that worked in the last release will be broken by this new
release.  Please explain how this is better than last release?

Thanks,
Om


The cost of a new RC is
non-trivial.  We have some users who are asking for help to port their
apps against a deadline.  To me, that is way more important than fixing
js-swf for NPM in this release because js-swf was broken in the prior
release.  This release is "better than the last release and not illegal".
The next release is will be in 30 days or less.

Someone hand-patched package.json and provided it on npm in the last
release.  It can probably be done for this release.  I'll bet there will
be a big bug in every release for a while.  As long as it isn't a major
regression, we should ship it and move on.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 2/12/18, 1:50 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>BTW, I noticed that I’m getting an error near the end of my ant build.
>This does not cause the “general bull” to fail:
>
>check-playerglobal-home:
> [echo] PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/libs/player
> [echo] playerglobal.version is 11.1
> [echo] playerglobal.swc is
>/Apache/frameworks/libs/player/11.1/playerglobal.swc
>
>check-air-home:
> [echo] AIR_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/AIRSDK_Compiler
>
>check-compiler-home:
>
>check-compile-env:
> [echo] OS: Mac OS X / 10.12.6 / x86_64
> [echo] VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM / 25.152-b16
> [echo] Java: 1.8.0_152
> [echo] Ant: Apache Ant(TM) version 1.10.2 compiled on February 3
>2018 Ant Java Version: 1.8
>
>prepare:
>
>compile:
>
>flat-ui-icons:
> [java]
> [java] Error: Missing builtin type Object
> [java]
> [java]
> [java] Error: Unable to build SWF
>/Apache/royale-asjs/frameworks/fonts/flat-ui-icons-regular.swf
> [java]
> [java]
> [java] Java Result: 2
>
>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does this require a new rc or can the script just be updated?
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 10:08 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>>><bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've pushed in a fix for the broken js-swf npm installation process.
>>>
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
>>>com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommit%2Fb9a1b32975cc755475ade761f36993efc8
>>>f1f058=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca934cb5af6e34aaf4bdd08d571fe1
>>>4cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636540258442339413
>>>a=3k%2FpsTS20s6JbaVpeTstXsL5MTVZl%2Bf%2FpQ7E8GKI8%2FE%3D=0
>>>
>>> Alex, given that this release is about npm installation (as per the
>>> RELEASE_NOTES), we need this fix to go in.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the trouble :-(
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trying that now…
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
>>>>><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the previous release approval script also runs Maven :) You can
>>>> manually
>>>>> copy playerglobal.swc 20.0 to the following location [1]. - That is
>>>>>an
>>>>> workaround.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal\20.0\
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018-02-11 16:00 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>> harbs.li...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah. Foo… :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The maven build failed on Core (after more than 30 minutes):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.royale.compiler:
>>>>>> royale-maven-plugin:0.9.1:compile-as (default-compile-as) on project
>>>>>> Core: Could not resolve dependencies for project
>>>>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.1: Could not find artifact
>>>>>> com.adobe.air.framework:airglobal:swc:20.0 in apache-release (
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo
>>>>>>sitory.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Freleases=02%7C01%7C
>>>>>>ah

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.1 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I've pushed in a fix for the broken js-swf npm installation process.
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/b9a1b32975cc755475ade761f36993efc8f1f058

Alex, given that this release is about npm installation (as per the
RELEASE_NOTES), we need this fix to go in.

Sorry for the trouble :-(

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:

> Trying that now…
>
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Piotr Zarzycki 
> wrote:
> >
> > In the previous release approval script also runs Maven :) You can
> manually
> > copy playerglobal.swc 20.0 to the following location [1]. - That is an
> > workaround.
> >
> > [1] .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal\20.0\
> >
> > 2018-02-11 16:00 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs >:
> >
> >> Ah. Foo… :-(
> >>
> >> The maven build failed on Core (after more than 30 minutes):
> >>
> >> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.royale.compiler:
> >> royale-maven-plugin:0.9.1:compile-as (default-compile-as) on project
> >> Core: Could not resolve dependencies for project
> >> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.1: Could not find artifact
> >> com.adobe.air.framework:airglobal:swc:20.0 in apache-release (
> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases) -> [Help
> 1]
> >>
> >>
> >> Additionally, the maven build caused me to have to constantly close
> Flash
> >> Player Debugger.
> >>
> >> Any ideas why the approval script is even running maven?
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the ant build was fine. I’m not sure what it’s doing now.
> >> It looks like it’s doing a maven build too? (I’m waiting for that to
> >> finish…)
> >>>
> >>> I also tried installing using nom, but that failed for me.
> >>>
> >>> I tried `sudo npm install https://dist.apache.org/repos/
> >> dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/rc1/binaries/apache-royale-0.9.1-bin-js-swf.tar.gz
> <
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/ <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/>
> >> rc1/binaries/apache-royale-0.9.1-bin-js-swf.tar.gz> -g` and got this
> >> result:
> >>> https://paste.apache.org/WdR4  <
> https://paste.apache.org/WdR4 >
> >>>
> >>> I’m not sure if the problem is on my end or what. Suggestions?
> >>>
> >>> Harbs
> >>>
>  On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Gabe Harbs    >> harbs.li...@gmail.com >> wrote:
> 
>  It finished building and then failed while building the examples
> >> because I didn’t have maven installed on my machine. I just installed
> maven
> >> and I’m trying again…
> 
>  Harbs
> 
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Gabe Harbs  
> >> >> wrote:
> >
> > I got it to run when I ran the script a second time (after cleaning
> >> out the folder with the approval script).
> >
> >> On Feb 11, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <
> >> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com   piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I have also problems with my newest Windows
> >> installation. :/
> >> Anyone experience earlier such things ?
> >>
> >> rat-check:
> >> Checking files at D:\Work\royale_vote/apache-royale-0.9.1-src,
> >> report is
> >> D:\Work\royale_vote/rat-report-src.txt
> >>
> >> BUILD FAILED
> >> D:\Work\royale_vote\ApproveRoyale.xml:352: The following error
> >> occurred
> >> while executing this line:
> >> jar:file:/C:/ant/lib/apache-rat-tasks-0.11.jar!/org/
> >> apache/rat/anttasks/antlib.xml:24:
> >> taskdef A class needed by class org.apache.rat.anttasks.Report
> cannot
> >> be
> >> found: org/apache/rat/analysis/IHeaderMatcher
> >> using the classloader AntClassLoader[]
> >>
> >> Thanks, Piotr
> >>
> >> 2018-02-11 12:10 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs    >> harbs.li...@gmail.com >>:
> >>
> >>> I’m having some trouble with ant on my new machine.
> >>>
> >>> I had installed ant using Homebrew, and the approval script
> >> complained
> >>> that ANT_HOME was not defined. I tried setting it to the home-brew
> >>> installed location and that didn’t work.
> >>>
> >>> I removed the homebrew installation and installed ant manually and
> >> added
> >>> ANT_HOME to my .profile file. That worked to get things to compile
> >> until I
> >>> got to the rat check. The I got an error:
> >>>
> >>> /Users/harbs/Documents/approve_royale/0.9.1/ApproveRoyale.xml:352:
> >>> Problem: failed to create task or type 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Royale 0.9.1 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

+0 Binding

Checksum matches
Signature verified
Building from sources works fine
js-only npm packages installed fine
Current apps seem to be working fine

js-swf npm package seems to have a bug.  I will check in a fix to 0.9.1
branch soon.

Thanks,
Om



On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> +1 (Binding)
>
> Following tests has been performed:
> - I checked IDE compatible binaries with Moonshine IDE - build couple of
> mine examples - OK
> - I checked Maven artifacts and build using them all my examples - OK
> - I have build sources using Maven. I didn't run ANT build. - OK
>
> I didn't use ApprovalScript, cause it didn't work for me. - Details
> mentioned in Discuss.
>
> README - we could add more details related to fixes for DataGrid component.
> Let's do this in the next release!
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
>
> 2018-02-08 21:02 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
> > +1
> > Package
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/rc1/
> > apache-royale-0.9.1
> > -src.tar.gz
> > Java 1.8
> > OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.12.5
> > Source kit signatures match: y
> > Source kit builds: y
> > README is ok: y
> > RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
> > NOTICE is ok: y
> > LICENSE is ok: y
> > No unapproved licenses or archives: y
> > No unapproved binaries: y
> >
> >
> > Package
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/rc1/
> > binaries/apache-roy
> > ale-0.9.1-bin-js-swf.tar.gz
> > Binary kit signatures match: y
> > NOTICE is ok: y
> > LICENSE is ok: y
> > No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y
> > No unapproved binaries in binary package: y
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/8/18, 11:58 AM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >This is vote for the 0.9.1 release of Apache Royale.
> > >
> > >The release candidate can be found here;
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apac
> > >he.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2F0.9.1%2Frc1%2F&
> > data=02%7C01%7Caharu
> > >i%40adobe.com%7C249d7363c28c4ff6a24308d56f2e
> > 5765%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67
> > >b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636537167178722263=
> > aVaTU9jR5UiDlLc8riHGHMfxCSOMl
> > >Fi43IehIDsvwa8%3D=0
> > >
> > >Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF requirements
> on
> > >approving a release?', at:
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache
> > >.org%2Fdev%2Frelease.html%23approving-a-release=02%
> > 7C01%7Caharui%40ad
> > >obe.com%7C249d7363c28c4ff6a24308d56f2e5765%
> 7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> > 0
> > >bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636537167178722263=p%2Fbj8jT5O5srU%
> > 2B3xmXJeNU1PZDiKvWG
> > >K7MjXGcNJsQY%3D=0
> > >
> > >At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
> > >- MD5 and signed packages are correct
> > >- README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
> > >- That the build script completes successfully
> > >- That you can compile and cross-compile a simple example using the SDK.
> > >
> > >The source package is a combination of the 3 main Royale repos.
> > >
> > >To use the binary package, unzip it into a folder.  The -js package is
> > >ready-to-use in an IDE or command-line.  If you need SWF output, use the
> > >-royale package and use Apache Ant to run the InstallAdobeSDKs script
> via:
> > >  ant -f InstallAdobeSDKs.xml
> > >
> > >You may also get the binary packages via NPM.  The -js package can be
> > >installed via:
> > >
> > >npm install
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apac
> > >he.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2F0.9.1%2Frc1%
> > 2Fbinaries%2Fapache-roy
> > >=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C249d7363c28c4ff6a24308d56f2e
> > 5765%7C71
> > >f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636537167178722263&
> > sdata=Rv6NjuIH
> > >gTh2tSfIfSWh0ySnAcpjMLrSBi4Fz3%2B4GCI%3D=0
> > >ale-0.9.1-bin-js.tar.gz -g
> > >
> > >The full package with SWF support can be installed via:
> > >
> > >npm install
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apac
> > >he.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2F0.9.1%2Frc=02%
> > 7C01%7Caharui%40
> > >adobe.com%7C249d7363c28c4ff6a24308d56f2e5765%
> > 7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c
> > >30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636537167178722263=o4uzi6BfUUt6%2FB8XkVwrJdx40I%
> > 2Fc%
> > >2FJ1DwSGOKc2vd5I%3D=0{rc}/binaries/apache-
> > >royale-0.9.1-bin-js-swf.tar.gz -g
> > >
> > >Maven artifacts are staged here:
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Frepositor
> > >y.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapacheroyale-1013=
> > 02%7C01%
> > >7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C249d7363c28c4ff6a24308d56f2e
> > 5765%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a
> > >8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636537167178722263=
> > b71yc5owyt%2F%2FgTNG4g
> > >cXc7VtK1F2blb5hJkoWzuXLUY%3D=0
> > >
> > >Please vote to approve this release:
> > >+1 Approve the release
> > >-1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments to why)
> > >
> > >This vote will be open for 72 hours 

Re: Royale Examples Blog proposal to all the team

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Great idea, Carlos.

Here is one I volunteer to write about: Getting started with Royale on npm

I will write this over the weekend and share it here.  We can post after
Andrew (and others) makes a sweep over it :-)

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> This sounds really good. I will be glad to help people who have strong
> Royale skills but are uncomfortable writing for publication in English.
>
> a
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to propose to start introducing some "pearls" (beads? ;)) of quick
> > knowledge about Royale in our blog (Peter de Haan's flex examples blog
> > style, remember it?)
> >
> > *This will make the effect that each post will be published in Facebook
> and
> > Twitter and will make us to be "on the air" and reach more people that
> > would eventually join us. Is not only about make it easy to learn Royale,
> > but to make people out there know us!)*
> >
> > To make this happen I propose to publish one tiny example each 2 weeks,
> and
> > each time from a different team member.
> >
> > Since we are around 10-15 people supporting this project, we can make
> > calendar with publish dates, so we all know when we must publish.
> >
> > In this way each one will be publishing each 6 month (approx.), and I
> think
> > this is very affordable for all of us
> >
> > what do you think?
> >
> > (btw, we can introduce the content in WP and schedule for publication the
> > day and hour we want, and then make it live royal.a.o)
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

The java Jackson parser supports metadata based specification that can tell
the deserializer to use a custom parser for specific sub properties.

https://fasterxml.github.io/jackson-annotations/javadoc/2.0.0/com/fasterxml/jackson/annotation/JsonSetter.html

This site has a pretty good rundown on Jackson
http://www.baeldung.com/jackson-annotations

Look for @jsonsetter.

Thanks
Om

On Feb 6, 2018 9:16 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:

> I’m really not sure how you plan on going about strongly typing
> hierarchical data.
>
> > On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs  wrote:
> >
> > What kind of utility do you have in mind?
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:09 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't bother making VO's by hand for ASDoc.  Let's write a utility to
> >> generate it.  It will save everyone time.  If you want to see
> >> bin/js-release, change the build to not use ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS for
> now.
> >>
> >> There are lots of reasons to avoid using plain Object in a Royale app
> >> other than as a hash map.  IMO, most C and Java apps don't use generic
> >> untyped dynamic bags of properties.  If I add a warning about Object
> use,
> >> there will be a directive to suppress it.  Objects are prone to error,
> and
> >> there is some indication that runtimes work better with type
> information.
> >> The JS runtimes wouldn't bother type inferencing otherwise.  WASM hints
> >> that it wants types.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 2/6/18, 8:45 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huh?
> >>>
> >>> I don’t see how it’s possible to avoid Object completely. Even using
> VOs
> >>> require constructing them from Objects when coming from outside
> sources.
> >>>
> >>> Again: I’m not arguing against using VOs when possible/practical. I’m
> >>> just arguing that use of dot notation on Objects shouldn’t blow up your
> >>> app.
> >>>
> >>> Right now, I’m creating VOs for the ASDoc app. It’s kind of tedious
> work…
> >>>
> >>> Harbs
> >>>
>  On Feb 6, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> 
>  Good catch. I fixed that.
> 
>  Actually, you are arguing in favor of ValueObjects.  The error was
> there
>  because commitObj was a plain Object so the compiler couldn't
> understand
>  more about it.  We want to not have any plain objects in a Royale app.
>  They only create potential problems.  In fact, maybe it is time for me
>  to
>  figure out how to generate warnings on every use of plain Object.
>  Eventually we will have typedefs for the GitHub value objects and then
>  there wouldn't be an issue like this.
> 
>  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
>  -Alex
> 
>  On 2/6/18, 2:59 AM, "Gabe Harbs"  wrote:
> 
> > To illustrate that the VO solution is also error prone, I’m pretty
> sure
> > that this page has a mistake:
> >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapachero
> > ya
> >
> > leci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_
> Staging%2Flast
> > Su
> >
> > ccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%
> 2Fapplication-t
> > ut
> >
> > orial%2Fvalue-objects.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C924b229e4
> > 9b
> >
> > b443ddbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> 0bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63653
> > 51
> >
> > 16172815360=e9FoFwJfNJfjmFlWF4%2FRIwCNU4R5mhEEQ9GYz70W3Ls%3D&
> reser
> > ve
> > d=0
> >
> >  http%3A%2F%2Fapacher
> > oy
> >
> > aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_
> Staging%2Flas
> > tS
> >
> > uccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%
> 2Fapplication-
> > tu
> >
> > torial%2Fvalue-objects.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C924b229e
> > 49
> >
> > bb443ddbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> 0bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365
> > 35
> >
> > 116172825365=3m3kTW910JYWV8MaM4%2F%
> 2B3v82l5EvxIqgRjqAtIC7N%2BU%3D&
> > re
> > served=0>
> >
> > Unless I’m missing something, the following line can be renamed:
> > data.message = commitObj.message;
> >
> > I think it should have been:
> > data.message = commitObj[“message”];
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Gabe Harbs 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Related:
> >>
> >> On this page:
> >>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapacher
> >> oy
> >>
> >> aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_
> Staging%2Fla
> >> st
> >>
> >> SuccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%
> 2Fapplicatio
> >> n-
> >>
> >> 

Re: Website description

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Feb 5, 2018 11:39 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

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


Justin,

Please don't invent issues when there are none.  If you stop for a moment
to understand what's going on in this thread, you will not make such
statements.

The issue here is that our website has junk text in the metadata tags.
Slack, Twitter etc pull that text to display a preview of the website when
you send the website link.

It does not matter if it is private or public. The problem is with our
website.  Which has been fixed, as per Carlos.

Let's please move on.

Thanks,
Om

Re: [MAVEN-BUILD] Royale-asjs - Build # 450 - Still Failing

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I think I got it.
>

Thank you.  Sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Om


>
> On 1/31/18, 5:18 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I will take a look soon.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Jan 31, 2018 3:34 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> There is some file without license header. It'r related to latest NPM
> >> changes ?
> >>
> >> 2018-01-31 12:17 GMT+01:00 Apache Jenkins Server <
> >> jenk...@builds.apache.org>
> >> :
> >>
> >> > The Apache Jenkins build system has built Royale-asjs (build #450)
> >> >
> >> > Status: Still Failing
> >> >
> >> > Check console output at
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fbuilds.a
> >>pache.org%2Fjob%2FRoyale-asjs%2F450%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %
> >>7C3faaf2ce51044573981608d568ad1940%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0
> >>%7C0%7C636530015221491576=Sh7NFz29hrKmQCStfy%
> 2Fftv2epqziAHjYSjfO%2F
> >>IZMCjY%3D=0
> >> to
> >> > view the results.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon:
> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C3faaf2ce5104
> >>4573981608d568ad1940%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365300
> >>15221491576=keXvWOi6vbGN6FlWlSjhwZBhD4tviW
> WbPqL17TPdjK0%3D
> >>=0
> >>
> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C3faaf2ce5104
> >>4573981608d568ad1940%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365300
> >>15221491576=keXvWOi6vbGN6FlWlSjhwZBhD4tviW
> WbPqL17TPdjK0%3D
> >>=0>*
> >>
>
>

Re: [MAVEN-BUILD] Royale-asjs - Build # 450 - Still Failing

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I will take a look soon.

Thanks,
Om

On Jan 31, 2018 3:34 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

> There is some file without license header. It'r related to latest NPM
> changes ?
>
> 2018-01-31 12:17 GMT+01:00 Apache Jenkins Server <
> jenk...@builds.apache.org>
> :
>
> > The Apache Jenkins build system has built Royale-asjs (build #450)
> >
> > Status: Still Failing
> >
> > Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Royale-asjs/450/
> to
> > view the results.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> I ran the install.  I don't think the package.json is the one from the
> released source artifact, so I think we might need to call this a nightly.
>  But it does seem to work!
>

Cool, thanks for testing.  Yes, as I mentioned in this thread [1], I had a
modify the package.json and a couple of .js files that deal with
downloading the dependencies.
But the Royale SDK part is exactly the same.  Since the NPM release is not
an official Apache release, it is okay for us to claim that this is Apache
Royale v0.9.0.


[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a610c585f6d3d35f1be742d8cf66b160c27e7a3f5db6dbdab59c59ab@%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E


>
> Thanks for figuring something out so folks don't have to use URLs.  One
> question though:  Is having folks use @apache-royale/royale-js better than
> some day having folks use just apache-royale-js or might we switch to
> apache-royale-js some day?  I've never seen the @org/package before, but I
> don't use NPM much, so I don't know what folks expect.
>

It will be better for us as an organization if we maintain scoped releases
instead of one offs.  I see this trend in other projects as well.  For
example, the latest Angular code is available under the @angular org:
https://www.npmjs.com/~angular.  Vue is available under @vue:
https://www.npmjs.com/org/vue

This approach would also protect us from outsiders taking up package names
that might cause confusion with our packages.  Only we can deploy packages
under the @apache-royale namespace going forward.

Thanks,
Om


>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/29/18, 1:14 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
> ><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Om,
> >>
> >> Does that install our release or Nightly ?
> >>
> >
> >The release version, i.e. 0.9.0.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-29 22:09 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > What about text like this for the download page on the website?
> >> > > ===
> >> > >
> >> > > The current version of Apache Royale is 0.9.0, released in January,
> >> 2018.
> >> > > It is beta-quality. This means that Royale may not work entirely as
> >>you
> >> > or
> >> > > we want it to, and that certain “standard” components or functions
> >>are
> >> > not
> >> > > yet available. However, you can create applications in Royale and
> >> compile
> >> > > them to run either in a browser window or on the Flash/AIR
> >>platforms.
> >> > >
> >> > > *Download *the compiled (binary) version of Royale from one of the
> >> Apache
> >> > > mirror sites:
> >> > >
> >> > > To create JavaScript applications only:
> >> > >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach
> >>e.org%2Fdyn%2Fcloser.lua%2Froyale%2F0.9.0%2F=02%
> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
> >>e.com%7Cafc6683ae225455b441f08d5675d51cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> ce
> >>e1%7C0%7C0%7C636528572861041185=W6vjxZJ2Iy3XuHc5Z8VjaeDAtxVRxX
> 6GWha
> >>eoI2BeFc%3D=0
> >> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz
> >> > >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach
> >>e.org%2Fdyn%2Fcloser.lua%2Froyale%2F0.9.0%2F=02%
> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
> >>e.com%7Cafc6683ae225455b441f08d5675d51cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> ce
> >>e1%7C0%7C0%7C636528572861041185=W6vjxZJ2Iy3XuHc5Z8VjaeDAtxVRxX
> 6GWha
> >>eoI2BeFc%3D=0
> >> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.zip
> >> > >
> >> > > To create JavaScript or Flash applications:
> >> > >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach
> >>e.org%2Fdyn%2Fcloser.lua%2Froyale%2F0.9.0%2F=02%
> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
> >>e.com%7Cafc6683ae225455b441f08d5675d51cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> ce
> >>e1%7C0%7C0%7C636528572861041185=W6vjxZJ2Iy3XuHc5Z8VjaeDAtxVRxX
> 6GWha
> >>eoI2BeFc%3D=0
> >> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.tar.gz
> >> > >
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Om,
>
> Does that install our release or Nightly ?
>

The release version, i.e. 0.9.0.


>
>
> 2018-01-29 22:09 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What about text like this for the download page on the website?
> > > ===
> > >
> > > The current version of Apache Royale is 0.9.0, released in January,
> 2018.
> > > It is beta-quality. This means that Royale may not work entirely as you
> > or
> > > we want it to, and that certain “standard” components or functions are
> > not
> > > yet available. However, you can create applications in Royale and
> compile
> > > them to run either in a browser window or on the Flash/AIR platforms.
> > >
> > > *Download *the compiled (binary) version of Royale from one of the
> Apache
> > > mirror sites:
> > >
> > > To create JavaScript applications only:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz
> > > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.zip
> > >
> > > To create JavaScript or Flash applications:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.tar.gz
> > > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> > > binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.zip
> > >
> > > Copy the contents of the download into a directory on your computer,
> then
> > > connect it to the IDE you are using.
> > >
> > >
> > > *NPM*:
> > >
> > > If you use npm, [WHAT GOES HERE?]
> > >
> > >
> > npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
> > npm install @apache-royale/royale-js-swf -g
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/29/18, 10:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I as a reader would want to see a summary of what is in the release,
> > > where
> > > > >and how to get it, and what to do with it once I have it. The same
> > > > >information would go into the appropriate pages in the help docs. I
> > can
> > > do
> > > > >a rough cut based on what I see in the README files, unless somebody
> > > with
> > > > >more knowledge wants to do the first draft.
> > > >
> > > > Go for it.  I don't have time for that today.
> > > > >
> > > > >On that front, here is a naive reader's question: I see lots of
> > > > >instructions in the README about compiling Royale, as if that were
> > > > >something I would always have to do. Then, almost as a throw-away, I
> > see
> > > > >notes about the already-compiled binaries. Does EVERYBODY download
> and
> > > > >build Royale for themselves? I would have thought your average
> > > app-builder
> > > > >would start with the compiled binaries and just want to know how to
> > > > >reference them from the IDE of choice.
> > > >
> > > > Apache is very source-code oriented since it is about Open Source.
> In
> > > > fact, to Apache, the binaries are not official releases, just
> > convenience
> > > > artifacts.  So websites, readme's and lots of other things are
> supposed
> > > to
> > > > be about working from the source code.
> > > >
> > > > We could put a different README in the binary artifacts.  I just
> don't
> > > > know how many people will read it instead of the "Get Started" we put
> > on
> > > > the docs page soon.
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> What about text like this for the download page on the website?
> ===
>
> The current version of Apache Royale is 0.9.0, released in January, 2018.
> It is beta-quality. This means that Royale may not work entirely as you or
> we want it to, and that certain “standard” components or functions are not
> yet available. However, you can create applications in Royale and compile
> them to run either in a browser window or on the Flash/AIR platforms.
>
> *Download *the compiled (binary) version of Royale from one of the Apache
> mirror sites:
>
> To create JavaScript applications only:
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.zip
>
> To create JavaScript or Flash applications:
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.tar.gz
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/royale/0.9.0/
> binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.zip
>
> Copy the contents of the download into a directory on your computer, then
> connect it to the IDE you are using.
>
>
> *NPM*:
>
> If you use npm, [WHAT GOES HERE?]
>
>
npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
npm install @apache-royale/royale-js-swf -g

Thanks,
Om


>
> ===
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 1/29/18, 10:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
> >
> > >I as a reader would want to see a summary of what is in the release,
> where
> > >and how to get it, and what to do with it once I have it. The same
> > >information would go into the appropriate pages in the help docs. I can
> do
> > >a rough cut based on what I see in the README files, unless somebody
> with
> > >more knowledge wants to do the first draft.
> >
> > Go for it.  I don't have time for that today.
> > >
> > >On that front, here is a naive reader's question: I see lots of
> > >instructions in the README about compiling Royale, as if that were
> > >something I would always have to do. Then, almost as a throw-away, I see
> > >notes about the already-compiled binaries. Does EVERYBODY download and
> > >build Royale for themselves? I would have thought your average
> app-builder
> > >would start with the compiled binaries and just want to know how to
> > >reference them from the IDE of choice.
> >
> > Apache is very source-code oriented since it is about Open Source.  In
> > fact, to Apache, the binaries are not official releases, just convenience
> > artifacts.  So websites, readme's and lots of other things are supposed
> to
> > be about working from the source code.
> >
> > We could put a different README in the binary artifacts.  I just don't
> > know how many people will read it instead of the "Get Started" we put on
> > the docs page soon.
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

Re: Publishing to and installing from NPM

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Gah, the installation commands should be:

npm install @apache-royale/royale-js -g
npm install @apache-royale/royale-js-swf -g

Thanks,
Om



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:41 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The Apache Royale NPM packages are distributed under the Apache-Royale NPM
> organization: https://www.npmjs.com/org/apache-royale
> There are two packages available:
>
> 1.  @apache-royale/royale-js [https://www.npmjs.com/
> package/@apache-royale/royale-js]
> 2.  @apache-royale/royale-js-swf [https://www.npmjs.com/
> package/@apache-royale/royale-js-swf]
>
> The package: @apache-royale/royale-js supports only the JS/HTML output.
> The package: @apache-royale/royale-js-swf supports both JS/HTML and
> SWF/AIR output.
>
> *For End Users:*
>
> To install these packages, users need to run the following commands:
>
> npm install @apache-royale/royale-js
> npm install @apache-royale/royale-js-swf
>
> *For Release Managers:*
>
> To publish the packages, run:
>
> cd release-scripts
> npm install
> node publish.js --type=js-only --pathToTarball=path-to-tgz-file
> --username=npm-username --password=npm-password
> node publish.js --type=js-swf --pathToTarball=path-to-tgz-file
> --username=npm-username --password=npm-password
>
> For example:
> node publish.js --type=js-only --pathToTarball="C:\p\os\
> flexroot\royale\royale-asjs\out\binaries\apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz"
> --username=apache-royale-owner --password=shared_in_private
> node publish.js --type=js-swf --pathToTarball="C:\p\os\
> flexroot\royale\royale-asjs\out\binaries\apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.tar.gz"
> --username=apache-royale-owner --password=shared_in_private
>
> P.S.: I fixed up the swf binary to fix the errors, so what's up on npm
> will work correctly for end users, but it is slightly different from the
> binary that is available on Github and the source code.  This should get
> fixed when we make the next release.
>
> P.P.S  I've created a Pull Request here so that folks can review and
> comment on the changes: https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/pull/115
>
> Once we finalize this workflow, we can add this to the Ant scripts.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>

Publishing to and installing from NPM

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

The Apache Royale NPM packages are distributed under the Apache-Royale NPM
organization: https://www.npmjs.com/org/apache-royale
There are two packages available:

1.  @apache-royale/royale-js [
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@apache-royale/royale-js]
2.  @apache-royale/royale-js-swf [
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@apache-royale/royale-js-swf]

The package: @apache-royale/royale-js supports only the JS/HTML output.
The package: @apache-royale/royale-js-swf supports both JS/HTML and SWF/AIR
output.

*For End Users:*

To install these packages, users need to run the following commands:

npm install @apache-royale/royale-js
npm install @apache-royale/royale-js-swf

*For Release Managers:*

To publish the packages, run:

cd release-scripts
npm install
node publish.js --type=js-only --pathToTarball=path-to-tgz-file
--username=npm-username --password=npm-password
node publish.js --type=js-swf --pathToTarball=path-to-tgz-file
--username=npm-username --password=npm-password

For example:
node publish.js --type=js-only
--pathToTarball="C:\p\os\flexroot\royale\royale-asjs\out\binaries\apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz"
--username=apache-royale-owner --password=shared_in_private
node publish.js --type=js-swf
--pathToTarball="C:\p\os\flexroot\royale\royale-asjs\out\binaries\apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js-swf.tar.gz"
--username=apache-royale-owner --password=shared_in_private

P.S.: I fixed up the swf binary to fix the errors, so what's up on npm will
work correctly for end users, but it is slightly different from the binary
that is available on Github and the source code.  This should get fixed
when we make the next release.

P.P.S  I've created a Pull Request here so that folks can review and
comment on the changes: https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/pull/115

Once we finalize this workflow, we can add this to the Ant scripts.

Thanks,
Om

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I'm still confused.  I think we agreed to use GH Pages.  AFAICT, GH Pages
> uses Jekyll and Markdown.


Jekyll is a general purpose static website generator.  Gitbook is built
specifically for documentation.


>   Jekyll expects a certain layout like templates
> in a _layout folder.  I have put a template in there.  I don't understand
> using a different production system that doesn't use Jekyll and its way of
> laying out text.
>


You can publish to GH pages without using Jekyll:
https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-static-site-generator-other-than-jekyll/

Here's how we can do it with Gitbook:
http://sangsoonam.github.io/2016/08/02/publish-gitbook-to-your-github-pages.html

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/28/18, 11:11 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This does not use the Jekyll workflow.  This uses the .md files directly.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Jan 28, 2018 10:57 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >I don’t get it.  There is a Jekyll template in our repo.  The link I just
> >clicked on did not appear to use it.
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 1/28/18, 4:41 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Yeah...the one thing it does not have is an expanding-collapsing ToC. The
> >>scrolling is not bad, but the intimidation effect of endless topic titles
> >>can be large. For me that is a usability negative...but not a
> >>deal-killer.
> >>
> >>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> BTW:
> >>>
> >>> That site has 3 levels in the table of contents:
> >>>
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fredux.j
> >>>s
> >>>.org%2Fdocs%2Frecipes%2Freducers%2FPrerequisiteConcepts.html&
> data=02%7C0
> >>>1
> >>>%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c
> 8547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
> >>>3
> >>>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=
> 4Bdy4FThikLGQukS0S
> >>>S
> >>>d6DXKBbnoe0oMuSrJ%2BpxpHYw%3D=0 <
> >>>
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fredux.j
> >>>s
> >>>.org%2Fdocs%2Frecipes%2Freducers%2FPrerequisiteConcepts.html&
> data=02%7C0
> >>>1
> >>>%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c
> 8547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
> >>>3
> >>>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=
> 4Bdy4FThikLGQukS0S
> >>>S
> >>>d6DXKBbnoe0oMuSrJ%2BpxpHYw%3D=0>
> >>>
> >>> > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:20 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>><bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Here is a very good example of what the end product would look like:
> >>> >
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fredux.j
> >>>s
> >>>.org%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c
> >>>8
> >>>547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636527401200834465
> >>>a
> >>>=GrTlTr5PCqHK6qS9pg9dKcKyRtO6BJU1xpxLGzWYOsY%3D=0
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Om
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:14 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement
> >>>for
> >>> the
> >>> >>> Jenkyll-produced site?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It's an additional way.  It uses the .md files from the github repo
> >>>and
> >>> >> builds its own site.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> Om
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>
&

Re: [DRAFT2][ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I was (and still am) confused by Om's effort to publish the NPM artifacts.
>  I was waiting to hear back from Om as to whether it was going to happen
> so we know whether to recommend to folks to use the URL on GitHub or not.
>
> I will send the announcement shortly with the GH URL, and we can send a
> correction later if Om figures out how to get the packages published in
> NPM.
>

I'm working on the scripts right now.  As I mentioned earlier, that wont
work until the next release of Royale.
It would be best to recommend users to install via the github url for now.

Thanks,
Om


>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/28/18, 3:31 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Piotr Zarzycki
> ><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah. I was going to ask for the Announce as well. Let's mention link to
> >> working version of NPM, which you Alex figure out. We could put them to
> >>the
> >> website.
> >>
> >
> >As mentioned earlier, the npm package is broken for this release.  We will
> >fix it in the next release of royale.
> >I'm working on publishing those anyway so that we have a process setup for
> >the next release.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> 2018-01-28 11:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I'm a bit confused here. What happen with the release and
> >>announcement?
> >> If
> >> > we have a release we should announce it. We published in twitter and
> >> > facebook that we was very close to our first release but starts to be
> >>a
> >> big
> >> > delay since that.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2018-01-25 20:29 GMT+01:00 Jason Guild <jason.gu...@alaska.gov>:
> >> >
> >> > > Alex:
> >> > >
> >> > > A suggestion for improving the opening sentence:
> >> > > The Apache Royale project is a continuation of the previous effort
> >> called
> >> > > FlexJS to produce a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 1/25/2018 12:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Apache Royale is a new project that took over the work on what was
> >> being
> >> > >> called FlexJS, a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that
> >>enables
> >> > >> developers to use MXML and ActionScript to generated HTML/JS/CSS so
> >> > >> applications can run natively in browsers.  The cross-compiled code
> >> can
> >> > >> also be used in Apache Cordova (Adobe PhoneGap) mobile
> >>applications.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Jason Guild
> >> > > Analyst/Programmer V
> >> > > State of Alaska - Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
> >> > > Information Systems and Services Division
> >> > > 820 E. 15th Ave.
> >> > > Anchorage, Alaska 99501
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Carlos Rovira
> >> >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ccb239e35d72348b9c4b608
> >>d56642d3a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C63652735958959059
> >>3=TSXP862xzR7UwLRN29XYaUNax18DCxNboYgzUCiF71c%3D=0
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon:
> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7Ccb239e35d723
> >>48b9c4b608d56642d3a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365273
> >>59589590593=cVHyuJ6atF9bUjtXpACaWgvNHGBCzS
> 6NE4AU5TFNTf4%3D
> >>=0
> >>
> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7Ccb239e35d723
> >>48b9c4b608d56642d3a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365273
> >>59589590593=cVHyuJ6atF9bUjtXpACaWgvNHGBCzS
> 6NE4AU5TFNTf4%3D
> >>=0>*
> >>
>
>

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

This does not use the Jekyll workflow.  This uses the .md files directly.

Thanks,
Om

On Jan 28, 2018 10:57 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

I don’t get it.  There is a Jekyll template in our repo.  The link I just
clicked on did not appear to use it.

-Alex

On 1/28/18, 4:41 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah...the one thing it does not have is an expanding-collapsing ToC. The
>scrolling is not bad, but the intimidation effect of endless topic titles
>can be large. For me that is a usability negative...but not a deal-killer.
>
>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW:
>>
>> That site has 3 levels in the table of contents:
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fredux.js
>>.org%2Fdocs%2Frecipes%2Freducers%2FPrerequisiteConcepts.html=02%7C01
>>%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c8547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=4Bdy4FThikLGQukS0SS
>>d6DXKBbnoe0oMuSrJ%2BpxpHYw%3D=0 <
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fredux.js
>>.org%2Fdocs%2Frecipes%2Freducers%2FPrerequisiteConcepts.html=02%7C01
>>%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c8547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=4Bdy4FThikLGQukS0SS
>>d6DXKBbnoe0oMuSrJ%2BpxpHYw%3D=0>
>>
>> > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:20 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>><bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here is a very good example of what the end product would look like:
>> >
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fredux.js
>>.org%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c8
>>547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465
>>=GrTlTr5PCqHK6qS9pg9dKcKyRtO6BJU1xpxLGzWYOsY%3D=0
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Om
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:14 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement
>>for
>> the
>> >>> Jenkyll-produced site?
>> >>>
>> >>> If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's an additional way.  It uses the .md files from the github repo
>>and
>> >> builds its own site.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Om
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Harbs
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook
>>[https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.gitbooks.io=
>>02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c8547%7Cfa7b1b5
>>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=VI3BEHW9v7GP
>>nAlTOg2gEp%2FgLrF61UFUShsrxY1wG7I%3D=0]
>> >>>> I was able to connect my personal fork of the royale-docs to my
>> >>> gitbooks.io
>> >>>> account.  This way, all my .md files are automatically available
>>for
>> >>> Docs
>> >>>> creation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here is an example I created in a few minutes:
>> >>>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbigosmal
>>lm.gitbooks.io%2Froyale-docs-test2%2Fcontent%2Fv%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui
>>%40adobe.com%7Ce35c7c4743804324141308d5664c8547%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c
>>178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636527401200834465=wYN9q4TD9UFz8rwXmzoh8QDc16En
>>Q64NDLMa4XKvMdg%3D=0
>> >>> develop/Create%20An%20Application.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The advantages I see using this tool are:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Seems to be a widely used tool for documentation these days.
>> >>> NPMjs.org,
>> >>>> React, Redux, etc. use Gitbook
>> >>>> * Two way sync between github and gitbook app.  That is, you can
>> create
>> >>> an
>> >>>> .md file on github and see it on gitbook.  You can also create more
>> >>> content
>> >>>> using the WYSIWYG editor 

Re: [DRAFT2][ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Jan 28, 2018 3:34 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote:

Om,

But Alex figure out that we can use links from GitHub which I published
[1]. Only JSOnly working.

sudo npm install -g
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/releases/download/apache-royale-0.9.0
/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin-js.tar.gz

Can we for that release ?



Yes, we can announce this.  Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks,
Om


Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-28 12:31 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. I was going to ask for the Announce as well. Let's mention link to
> > working version of NPM, which you Alex figure out. We could put them to
> the
> > website.
> >
>
> As mentioned earlier, the npm package is broken for this release.  We will
> fix it in the next release of royale.
> I'm working on publishing those anyway so that we have a process setup for
> the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2018-01-28 11:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm a bit confused here. What happen with the release and
announcement?
> > If
> > > we have a release we should announce it. We published in twitter and
> > > facebook that we was very close to our first release but starts to be
a
> > big
> > > delay since that.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-01-25 20:29 GMT+01:00 Jason Guild <jason.gu...@alaska.gov>:
> > >
> > > > Alex:
> > > >
> > > > A suggestion for improving the opening sentence:
> > > > The Apache Royale project is a continuation of the previous effort
> > called
> > > > FlexJS to produce a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/25/2018 12:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Apache Royale is a new project that took over the work on what was
> > being
> > > >> called FlexJS, a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that
enables
> > > >> developers to use MXML and ActionScript to generated HTML/JS/CSS so
> > > >> applications can run natively in browsers.  The cross-compiled code
> > can
> > > >> also be used in Apache Cordova (Adobe PhoneGap) mobile
applications.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jason Guild
> > > > Analyst/Programmer V
> > > > State of Alaska - Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
> > > > Information Systems and Services Division
> > > > 820 E. 15th Ave.
> > > > Anchorage, Alaska 99501
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>



--

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Re: [DRAFT2][ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Yeah. I was going to ask for the Announce as well. Let's mention link to
> working version of NPM, which you Alex figure out. We could put them to the
> website.
>

As mentioned earlier, the npm package is broken for this release.  We will
fix it in the next release of royale.
I'm working on publishing those anyway so that we have a process setup for
the next release.

Thanks,
Om


>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> 2018-01-28 11:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit confused here. What happen with the release and announcement?
> If
> > we have a release we should announce it. We published in twitter and
> > facebook that we was very close to our first release but starts to be a
> big
> > delay since that.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-25 20:29 GMT+01:00 Jason Guild :
> >
> > > Alex:
> > >
> > > A suggestion for improving the opening sentence:
> > > The Apache Royale project is a continuation of the previous effort
> called
> > > FlexJS to produce a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that...
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/25/2018 12:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> > >
> > >> Apache Royale is a new project that took over the work on what was
> being
> > >> called FlexJS, a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that enables
> > >> developers to use MXML and ActionScript to generated HTML/JS/CSS so
> > >> applications can run natively in browsers.  The cross-compiled code
> can
> > >> also be used in Apache Cordova (Adobe PhoneGap) mobile applications.
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Guild
> > > Analyst/Programmer V
> > > State of Alaska - Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
> > > Information Systems and Services Division
> > > 820 E. 15th Ave.
> > > Anchorage, Alaska 99501
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Here is a very good example of what the end product would look like:
https://redux.js.org/

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:14 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement for the
>> Jenkyll-produced site?
>>
>> If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not.
>>
>
> It's an additional way.  It uses the .md files from the github repo and
> builds its own site.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook [www.gitbooks.io]
>> > I was able to connect my personal fork of the royale-docs to my
>> gitbooks.io
>> > account.  This way, all my .md files are automatically available for
>> Docs
>> > creation.
>> >
>> > Here is an example I created in a few minutes:
>> > https://bigosmallm.gitbooks.io/royale-docs-test2/content/v/
>> develop/Create%20An%20Application.html
>> >
>> > The advantages I see using this tool are:
>> >
>> > * Seems to be a widely used tool for documentation these days.
>> NPMjs.org,
>> > React, Redux, etc. use Gitbook
>> > * Two way sync between github and gitbook app.  That is, you can create
>> an
>> > .md file on github and see it on gitbook.  You can also create more
>> content
>> > using the WYSIWYG editor on Gitbook, which will be synced to the github
>> > repo.
>> > * Seems pretty straightforward to create a TOC.  It includes support for
>> > tree structure by default
>> > * We can choose to use the web app on gitbook.com or use the open
>> > source(Apache V2 licensed | https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook)
>> command
>> > line tool.  The CLI will help us integrate with our Jenkins build for
>> > example.
>> > * Allows users to provide feedback on the site itself
>> > * Allows us to point the docs site to our custom domain address
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is more interest in trying this out, I can set up an
>> Organization
>> > account (free) and add users as needed.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Om
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the ToC accordions properly and we need three levels, I do not see
>> why
>> >> three levels would cause more confusion than two levels. If this is a
>> >> resource providing information people are going to need to use Royale,
>> and
>> >> if that information is not readily available elsewhere, then we should
>> make
>> >> the ToC fit the information, not the other way around.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Carlos Rovira <
>> carlosrov...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Alex,
>> >>>
>> >>> for TOC. One think that's very important to me: Please only *two
>> levels*
>> >> in
>> >>> TOC. For simplicity and clarity. Like the demo page I did. It's the
>> >>> standard right now and a three level only created confusion. Again see
>> >>> Angular and React sites to match what they did and take it as a
>> >> reference.
>> >>>
>> >>> For states. I think the trick here is that a .md page has some
>> variables
>> >>> that will make the right top level branch open in TOC and as well make
>> >> the
>> >>> right sub option appears as selected (strong type) and without link.
>> As
>> >> we
>> >>> are dealing with static GitHub pages I think there's no concept of
>> >>> component, only that all pages has the TOC added to the sidebar.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2018-01-27 1:18 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> What you describe sounds fine to me. I don't think we need to worry
>> >> about
>> >>>> breadcrumbs and state and helping people go backwards through their
>> >>> series
>> >>>> of clicks.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
>> >
>>

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement for the
> Jenkyll-produced site?
>
> If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not.
>

It's an additional way.  It uses the .md files from the github repo and
builds its own site.

Thanks,
Om


>
> Harbs
>
> > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook [www.gitbooks.io]
> > I was able to connect my personal fork of the royale-docs to my
> gitbooks.io
> > account.  This way, all my .md files are automatically available for Docs
> > creation.
> >
> > Here is an example I created in a few minutes:
> > https://bigosmallm.gitbooks.io/royale-docs-test2/content/
> v/develop/Create%20An%20Application.html
> >
> > The advantages I see using this tool are:
> >
> > * Seems to be a widely used tool for documentation these days.
> NPMjs.org,
> > React, Redux, etc. use Gitbook
> > * Two way sync between github and gitbook app.  That is, you can create
> an
> > .md file on github and see it on gitbook.  You can also create more
> content
> > using the WYSIWYG editor on Gitbook, which will be synced to the github
> > repo.
> > * Seems pretty straightforward to create a TOC.  It includes support for
> > tree structure by default
> > * We can choose to use the web app on gitbook.com or use the open
> > source(Apache V2 licensed | https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook)
> command
> > line tool.  The CLI will help us integrate with our Jenkins build for
> > example.
> > * Allows users to provide feedback on the site itself
> > * Allows us to point the docs site to our custom domain address
> >
> >
> > If there is more interest in trying this out, I can set up an
> Organization
> > account (free) and add users as needed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> If the ToC accordions properly and we need three levels, I do not see
> why
> >> three levels would cause more confusion than two levels. If this is a
> >> resource providing information people are going to need to use Royale,
> and
> >> if that information is not readily available elsewhere, then we should
> make
> >> the ToC fit the information, not the other way around.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> for TOC. One think that's very important to me: Please only *two
> levels*
> >> in
> >>> TOC. For simplicity and clarity. Like the demo page I did. It's the
> >>> standard right now and a three level only created confusion. Again see
> >>> Angular and React sites to match what they did and take it as a
> >> reference.
> >>>
> >>> For states. I think the trick here is that a .md page has some
> variables
> >>> that will make the right top level branch open in TOC and as well make
> >> the
> >>> right sub option appears as selected (strong type) and without link. As
> >> we
> >>> are dealing with static GitHub pages I think there's no concept of
> >>> component, only that all pages has the TOC added to the sidebar.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-01-27 1:18 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> What you describe sounds fine to me. I don't think we need to worry
> >> about
> >>>> breadcrumbs and state and helping people go backwards through their
> >>> series
> >>>> of clicks.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Breaking out a separate thread on this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thinking about this some more, I think I can generate an interactive
> >>>>> control with Jekyll, but I don't know how to make it retain state.  I
> >>>>> think that might require cookies and/or frames.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, let's say the TOC looked like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Welcome
> >>>>> --High Level View
> >>>>> --Features
> >>

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook [www.gitbooks.io]
I was able to connect my personal fork of the royale-docs to my gitbooks.io
account.  This way, all my .md files are automatically available for Docs
creation.

Here is an example I created in a few minutes:
https://bigosmallm.gitbooks.io/royale-docs-test2/content/v/develop/Create%20An%20Application.html

The advantages I see using this tool are:

* Seems to be a widely used tool for documentation these days.  NPMjs.org,
React, Redux, etc. use Gitbook
* Two way sync between github and gitbook app.  That is, you can create an
.md file on github and see it on gitbook.  You can also create more content
using the WYSIWYG editor on Gitbook, which will be synced to the github
repo.
* Seems pretty straightforward to create a TOC.  It includes support for
tree structure by default
* We can choose to use the web app on gitbook.com or use the open
source(Apache V2 licensed | https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook) command
line tool.  The CLI will help us integrate with our Jenkins build for
example.
* Allows users to provide feedback on the site itself
* Allows us to point the docs site to our custom domain address


If there is more interest in trying this out, I can set up an Organization
account (free) and add users as needed.

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> If the ToC accordions properly and we need three levels, I do not see why
> three levels would cause more confusion than two levels. If this is a
> resource providing information people are going to need to use Royale, and
> if that information is not readily available elsewhere, then we should make
> the ToC fit the information, not the other way around.
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > for TOC. One think that's very important to me: Please only *two levels*
> in
> > TOC. For simplicity and clarity. Like the demo page I did. It's the
> > standard right now and a three level only created confusion. Again see
> > Angular and React sites to match what they did and take it as a
> reference.
> >
> > For states. I think the trick here is that a .md page has some variables
> > that will make the right top level branch open in TOC and as well make
> the
> > right sub option appears as selected (strong type) and without link. As
> we
> > are dealing with static GitHub pages I think there's no concept of
> > component, only that all pages has the TOC added to the sidebar.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-27 1:18 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :
> >
> > > What you describe sounds fine to me. I don't think we need to worry
> about
> > > breadcrumbs and state and helping people go backwards through their
> > series
> > > of clicks.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Alex Harui 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Breaking out a separate thread on this...
> > > >
> > > > Thinking about this some more, I think I can generate an interactive
> > > > control with Jekyll, but I don't know how to make it retain state.  I
> > > > think that might require cookies and/or frames.
> > > >
> > > > For example, let's say the TOC looked like:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome
> > > > --High Level View
> > > > --Features
> > > > AS3
> > > > MXML
> > > > Get Started
> > > > --Download
> > > > --Hello World
> > > >
> > > > I've already implemented logic in the template to auto-expand the
> tree
> > to
> > > > the document for folks who have direct links.  So, if you do a Google
> > > > Search and find the link to the MXML page, when you go to that page,
> > the
> > > > ToC will automatically look like:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome
> > > > --High Level View
> > > > --Features
> > > > AS3
> > > > ---*MXML*
> > > > Get Started
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you hit the main doc page, the ToC starts out collapsed so that
> Get
> > > > Started isn't pushed down by a bunch of Welcome sub-topics.  So the
> ToC
> > > > initially looks like:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome
> > > > Get Started
> > > >
> > > > Now let's say you expand both Welcome and Get Started so you see:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome
> > > > --High Level View
> > > > --Features
> > > > Get Started
> > > > --Download
> > > > --Hello World
> > > >
> > > > Then you click on Features.  The logic that opens trees to direct
> links
> > > is
> > > > going to cause the ToC to look like:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Welcome
> > > > --High Level View
> > > > --Features
> > > > Get Started
> > > >
> > > > Even though you had expanded "Get Started" it will collapse when
> going
> > to
> > > > the Features page.  That's because, without frames, each page is its
> > own
> > > > HTML page.  No state about the ToC is retained or shared.
> > > >
> > > > If folks are ok with that, I can probably get that to work.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> 

Re: [DRAFT] [ANNOUNCE] Apache Royale 0.9.0 Released

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I think it is perfectly fine to announce without npm support.  We can add
it in our next release.

Thanks,
Om

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> If we can edit the text later, then IMO, go ahead and publish.
>
> If not, we might want to wait to hear from more folks.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/24/18, 3:20 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >I have created release on GitHub - It's unpublished [1] - Do we want to
> >add
> >something more there ?
> >
> >[1]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Freleases%2Ftag%2Funtagged-
> 3e7dc9305c4ad1eaa804&
> >data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2688068931e74b0ed20b08d56381
> 0cae%7Cfa7
> >b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524328276148227&
> sdata=waf5UTV1g
> >Rint9dmutBs6v2y7USv3KNP3dJKI7%2FzZFs%3D=0
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >2018-01-24 23:06 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> >> Hi thanks Alex and Andrew,
> >>
> >> right now we are having such moderate impact on internet. For example in
> >> twitter we have 135 followers, in facebook 40. We have the accounts open
> >> about 15 days like the website. So we can make huge noise right now.
> >>Just
> >> letting people know we release our first release is great, but we must
> >> lower expectations about actual Apache Royale state since although the
> >> technology in in place, to make real apps it's not as friendly as Flex,
> >>and
> >> we don't want people coming get frustrated about that. But this is a
> >> required step in order to follow up improving royale
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-24 19:00 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :
> >>
> >> > Tweakage: I would change this passage
> >> >
> >> > This release should be considered ‘beta' quality. The purpose of this
> >> > release is to gather feedback about the features and implementation
> >> > strategies, and recruit new contributors as we grow the code base
> >>into an
> >> > SDK and tool chain that delivers the highest productivity developing
> >> > applications that can run in the most places. These releases may not
> >> > handle production needs.
> >> >
> >> > to this
> >> >
> >> > This release should be considered ‘beta' quality. The purpose of this
> >> > release is to gather feedback about the features and implementation
> >> > strategies, and and to recruit new contributors. We hope to grow the
> >>code
> >> > base into an
> >> > SDK and tool chain that delivers the highest productivity when
> >>developing
> >> > applications that can run on many platforms. Beta releases may not
> >> > handle production needs.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Alex Harui  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Please comment on the draft below. Quite frankly, I'm not clear how
> >> much
> >> > > noise we want to make about 0.9.0.  Looks like NPM is not working at
> >> all.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> > > -Alex
> >> > >
> >> > > ---
> >> > >
> >> > > The Apache Royale community is pleased to announce the release of
> >> Apache
> >> > > Royale 0.9.0.
> >> > >
> >> > > Apache Royale is a new project that took over the work on what was
> >> being
> >> > > called FlexJS, a next-generation of the Apache Flex SDK that enables
> >> > > developers to use MXML and ActionScript to generated HTML/JS/CSS so
> >> > > applications can run natively in browsers.  The cross-compiled code
> >>can
> >> > > also be used in Apache Cordova (Adobe PhoneGap) mobile applications.
> >> > >
> >> > > (Apache Flex is a highly productive, open source application
> >>framework
> >> > for
> >> > > building and maintaining expressive applications that deploy on
> >>Adobe
> >> > > Flash and Adobe AIR to provide a consistent experience on all major
> >> > > browsers, desktops and devices.)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > This release should be considered ‘beta' quality. The purpose of
> >>this
> >> > > release is to gather feedback about the features and implementation
> >> > > strategies, and recruit new contributors as we grow the code base
> >>into
> >> an
> >> > > SDK and tool chain that delivers the highest productivity developing
> >> > > applications that can run in the most places. These releases may not
> >> > > handle production needs.  Expect lots of bugs and
> >> > > missing features.  Please file bugs at:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>om%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C26
> >>88068931e74b0ed20b08d563810cae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >>%7C636524328276148227=WQg0itgboRLm33P7H1kRIivRGsNB0p
> c7lmzLZMgfspE%3
> >>D=0
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > (If you happen to know it is a compiler issue, please use:
> >> > >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>om%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Fissues=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com

Re: Updating 2015 FlexJS presentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Om.
>
> Quick question: the slides refer to several FlexJS examples. Are they still
> running? Will they eventually migrate to Royale versions?
>

All the examples continue to work with Apache Royale.  They are available
here: https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/develop/examples


>
> I am tempted to make a first migration of this slide deck with the
> substance but without the links to the examples. Then, when we have
> examples running in Royale versions, I would update the presentation.


> I will have other questions about how two years of development may have
> affected the texts...
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:03 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Please feel free to take this presentation and modify it.  I have made
> the
> > original ppt file available here:
> > https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/FPveqBSWJ5PiXXYkbSslIC36LLVgMY
> > sHg8UUNHEV2c
> >
> > I don't have a presentation script (I just winged it :-D)  But I would
> > guess that by the time you make your changes, you might want to get
> > yourself a new script.
> >
> > Glad to help in any way, just let me know.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > Om presented this slide deck at ApacheCon in 2015 [1]. The FlexJS help
> > docs
> > > refer to it, and I wondered if it would be worth updating for current
> use
> > > with Royale.
> > >
> > > I would be happy to do the grunt work of updating the slides if someone
> > can
> > > provide the PowerPoint. Do we have a place to host such things?
> > >
> > > Oh, was there a presentation script with this? If it is written out, I
> > > would be glad to record it and turn it and the PowerPoint into a little
> > > video we could post (and host) on YouTube. I do a lot of voice work for
> > > various companies and record audio and assemble videos for them in my
> own
> > > studio.
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/
> > > files/slides/FlexJS_ApacheCon_2015.pdf
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

Re: Cannot install royale-swf from npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Jan 24, 2018 2:10 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:

Hi, please as NPM is ready, make a new thread a resume all important info
about how many npm packages we have, urls, instructions and all that is
needed so I can add it to the website. Thanks


Will do.

Thanks,
Om


2018-01-24 22:51 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, but I believe the royale-swf package still won't run.  Or are you
> > going to fix that before publishing?
> >
>
> Hmm, fixing it will require a new release, right?  If that is the case, I
> would rather push what we have as is.
> The correct fix can go with the next release.
>
> We might need a couple of such releases to get things right.
>
>
>
> > Please use NPM 5.6.0 so we can use whatever steps you end up using in
the
> > RM script.
> >
>
> Will try that.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 1/24/18, 1:08 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala"
> > <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm going to republish both under the apache royale organization.
> Please
> > >hold off on making any changes till then.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Om
> > >
> > >On Jan 24, 2018 12:31 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Interesting.  There might be different rules for Apache Royale since
> our
> > >> repos are under the Apache organization, but if you can get it to
> work,
> > >>I
> > >> think that would be helpful.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >> On 1/24/18, 12:21 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Ahh Yes!
> > >> >
> > >> >You can do nice release on the GH. We are doing such based on TAG.
> I'm
> > >> >putting in the description links to the release [1]
> > >> >
> > >> >[1]
> > >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > >> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> > >>
> > >>>m%2Fprominic%2FMoonshine-IDE%2Freleases=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> > 40adobe.co
> > >>>m
> > >> %
> > >> >7C4f0876c2f05f4609fc0408d563680ef3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> > >> cee1%7C0%
> > >> >7C0%7C636524220939419032=WThjkWpxGSPICEBhySb0JJtVJOIKT%
> > >> 2B1wevQ9mi9Kv
> > >> >Lg%3D=0
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >2018-01-24 20:58 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> The NPM install name is defined in package.json.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The -bin-js package is JS only, no SWF support.  It's package name
> is
> > >> >> 'royale'.  Turns out there is already a 'royale' out there, so
I've
> > >> >> already changed it to 'apache-royale' in the nightly builds and
for
> > >>the
> > >> >> next release.  Technically, we shouldn't NPM publish this package
> > >>with
> > >> >>its
> > >> >> new name until we've officially released the source file with the
> new
> > >> >>name
> > >> >> in it, but also, technically, binary packages are not official
> > >>releases
> > >> >>of
> > >> >> the ASF.  I think any individual could publish a nightly as
> > >> >>apache-royale,
> > >> >> but I'm not sure it is worth it.  Folks can just use npm install
> > >> > >> >> the package> as I instructed upthread.  If someone wants to put
> that
> > >> >> package some place that isn't mirrored, they can do that as well.
> We
> > >> >> could put it on the CI server, for example.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The -bin-js-swf package contains SWF support and thus it contains
a
> > >>.js
> > >> >> file that downloads the Adobe SDKs.  It looks like that .js file
> > >>needs
> > >> >> fixing so no matter where or how you get at that package, it will
> > >>throw
> > >> >>an
> > >> >> error on installation.  Someone needs to take the time 

Re: Updating 2015 FlexJS presentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Andrew,

Please feel free to take this presentation and modify it.  I have made the
original ppt file available here:
https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/FPveqBSWJ5PiXXYkbSslIC36LLVgMYsHg8UUNHEV2c

I don't have a presentation script (I just winged it :-D)  But I would
guess that by the time you make your changes, you might want to get
yourself a new script.

Glad to help in any way, just let me know.

Thanks,
Om

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Andrew Wetmore 
wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Om presented this slide deck at ApacheCon in 2015 [1]. The FlexJS help docs
> refer to it, and I wondered if it would be worth updating for current use
> with Royale.
>
> I would be happy to do the grunt work of updating the slides if someone can
> provide the PowerPoint. Do we have a place to host such things?
>
> Oh, was there a presentation script with this? If it is written out, I
> would be glad to record it and turn it and the PowerPoint into a little
> video we could post (and host) on YouTube. I do a lot of voice work for
> various companies and record audio and assemble videos for them in my own
> studio.
>
> a
>
>
> [1]
> https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/
> files/slides/FlexJS_ApacheCon_2015.pdf
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

Re: Cannot install royale-swf from npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> OK, but I believe the royale-swf package still won't run.  Or are you
> going to fix that before publishing?
>

Hmm, fixing it will require a new release, right?  If that is the case, I
would rather push what we have as is.
The correct fix can go with the next release.

We might need a couple of such releases to get things right.



> Please use NPM 5.6.0 so we can use whatever steps you end up using in the
> RM script.
>

Will try that.

Thanks,
Om



>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/24/18, 1:08 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm going to republish both under the apache royale organization.  Please
> >hold off on making any changes till then.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Jan 24, 2018 12:31 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting.  There might be different rules for Apache Royale since our
> >> repos are under the Apache organization, but if you can get it to work,
> >>I
> >> think that would be helpful.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 1/24/18, 12:21 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ahh Yes!
> >> >
> >> >You can do nice release on the GH. We are doing such based on TAG. I'm
> >> >putting in the description links to the release [1]
> >> >
> >> >[1]
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >>
> >>>m%2Fprominic%2FMoonshine-IDE%2Freleases=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> 40adobe.co
> >>>m
> >> %
> >> >7C4f0876c2f05f4609fc0408d563680ef3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%
> >> >7C0%7C636524220939419032=WThjkWpxGSPICEBhySb0JJtVJOIKT%
> >> 2B1wevQ9mi9Kv
> >> >Lg%3D=0
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >2018-01-24 20:58 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >> >
> >> >> The NPM install name is defined in package.json.
> >> >>
> >> >> The -bin-js package is JS only, no SWF support.  It's package name is
> >> >> 'royale'.  Turns out there is already a 'royale' out there, so I've
> >> >> already changed it to 'apache-royale' in the nightly builds and for
> >>the
> >> >> next release.  Technically, we shouldn't NPM publish this package
> >>with
> >> >>its
> >> >> new name until we've officially released the source file with the new
> >> >>name
> >> >> in it, but also, technically, binary packages are not official
> >>releases
> >> >>of
> >> >> the ASF.  I think any individual could publish a nightly as
> >> >>apache-royale,
> >> >> but I'm not sure it is worth it.  Folks can just use npm install
> >> >> >> the package> as I instructed upthread.  If someone wants to put that
> >> >> package some place that isn't mirrored, they can do that as well.  We
> >> >> could put it on the CI server, for example.
> >> >>
> >> >> The -bin-js-swf package contains SWF support and thus it contains a
> >>.js
> >> >> file that downloads the Adobe SDKs.  It looks like that .js file
> >>needs
> >> >> fixing so no matter where or how you get at that package, it will
> >>throw
> >> >>an
> >> >> error on installation.  Someone needs to take the time to fix that
> >>.js
> >> >> file and then we can discuss whether to publish it or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> IMO, we should just tell folks who ask to install the 'royale'
> >>package
> >> >>via
> >> >> the mirrors or maybe put a copy up on another server.  Does GH have a
> >> >> releases folder or something like that?  I hope to start the 0.9.1
> >> >>release
> >> >> in 10 to 14 days.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/24/18, 11:44 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I just wanted to say that we shouldn't loose opportunity to show
> >>that
> >> >> >r

Re: Cannot install royale-swf from npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I'm going to republish both under the apache royale organization.  Please
hold off on making any changes till then.

Thanks,
Om

On Jan 24, 2018 12:31 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

> Interesting.  There might be different rules for Apache Royale since our
> repos are under the Apache organization, but if you can get it to work, I
> think that would be helpful.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/24/18, 12:21 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Ahh Yes!
> >
> >You can do nice release on the GH. We are doing such based on TAG. I'm
> >putting in the description links to the release [1]
> >
> >[1]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fprominic%2FMoonshine-IDE%2Freleases=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %
> >7C4f0876c2f05f4609fc0408d563680ef3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%
> >7C0%7C636524220939419032=WThjkWpxGSPICEBhySb0JJtVJOIKT%
> 2B1wevQ9mi9Kv
> >Lg%3D=0
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-01-24 20:58 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >> The NPM install name is defined in package.json.
> >>
> >> The -bin-js package is JS only, no SWF support.  It's package name is
> >> 'royale'.  Turns out there is already a 'royale' out there, so I've
> >> already changed it to 'apache-royale' in the nightly builds and for the
> >> next release.  Technically, we shouldn't NPM publish this package with
> >>its
> >> new name until we've officially released the source file with the new
> >>name
> >> in it, but also, technically, binary packages are not official releases
> >>of
> >> the ASF.  I think any individual could publish a nightly as
> >>apache-royale,
> >> but I'm not sure it is worth it.  Folks can just use npm install  >> the package> as I instructed upthread.  If someone wants to put that
> >> package some place that isn't mirrored, they can do that as well.  We
> >> could put it on the CI server, for example.
> >>
> >> The -bin-js-swf package contains SWF support and thus it contains a .js
> >> file that downloads the Adobe SDKs.  It looks like that .js file needs
> >> fixing so no matter where or how you get at that package, it will throw
> >>an
> >> error on installation.  Someone needs to take the time to fix that .js
> >> file and then we can discuss whether to publish it or not.
> >>
> >> IMO, we should just tell folks who ask to install the 'royale' package
> >>via
> >> the mirrors or maybe put a copy up on another server.  Does GH have a
> >> releases folder or something like that?  I hope to start the 0.9.1
> >>release
> >> in 10 to 14 days.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 1/24/18, 11:44 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> >I just wanted to say that we shouldn't loose opportunity to show that
> >> >release. If npm is not working let's provide simple urls on the
> >>website.
> >> >
> >> >2018-01-24 19:59 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >> >
> >> >> If npm is broken and it's require fix in the source I understand.
> >>What's
> >> >> with second option ? For this release we could provide on the
> >>website at
> >> >> least links.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Piotr
> >> >>
> >> >> 2018-01-24 19:33 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >> >>
> >> >>> I'm not sure how to fix the npm issues without changing a source
> >>file.
> >> >>>  Any ideas?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Get Outlook for
> >>
> >Android com/?url=https%3A%2F
> >%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> 40adobe.com
> >%7C4f0876c2f05f4609fc0408d563680ef3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1
> >%7C0%7C0%7C636524220939419032=Q2ckBrKyA%
> 2BPcM9J7bsJskhw14m2ynBTr
> >ue3SuHD6QCI%3D=0.
> >> com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
> >> >>>Faka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7Cdec5bceb963f427bfce
> >> >>>308d56362f69d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365241990598
> >>
> >71558=Ck0YuGPpWIOI8OtZcmmk5bSdqlkdf2
> 09IgzgXGZhvL4%3D=0>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> From: Piotr Zarzycki 
> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:17:12 AM
> >> >>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >> >>> Subject: Re: Cannot install royale-swf from npm
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Alex,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Can we republish once again everything ? If not can we upload
> >>binaries
> >> >>>to
> >> >>> Apache mirrors[1] as we had this with Flex ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1]
> >> >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%
> >> >>> 2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdyn%2Fcloser.lua%2Fflex%2F4.16.1%
> >> >>> 2Fbinaries%2Fapache-flex-sdk-4.16.1-bin.zip=02%7C01%
> >> >>> 7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1faec7dcd0424ee4086108d56356b4c6%7Cfa
> >> >>> 7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524146406190877&
> >> >>> sdata=KS5MwWOTANwoaf9iihN2CBWFtTfOgUKfNBRMr5qb%2Blc%3D=0
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Piotr
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2018-01-24 19:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui 

Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

A good workflow would be as follows:

* Create your personal branch off of the `develop` branch
* Make all your commits directly to your personal branch
* When you are ready to share your work to the world, create a Pull Request
from your branch to `develop`
* This will let others look at and review your changes.
* Now, you are a committer, that means that you can simply merge that Pull
Request yourself.

Earlier, when you were not a committer, you had to wait for one of us to do
the last step, i.e. merge the Pull Request.

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Andrew Wetmore 
wrote:

> Ah, wait: I was only creating and editing that file in my personal branch.
> I still don't see how to do creates and edits without making and having
> someone else process branches.
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Wetmore 
> wrote:
>
> > I now seem to be able to create and commit a new file, and to edit an
> > existing file and commit the edited file directly!
> >
> > Excellent.
> >
> > What do I do with the lurking pull requests?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Can you use Git to clone a repo and try a test commit?  That might help
> determine if the problem is that your committer rights are still not right
> or just the rights to use the GH UI (which does allow me to use the edit
> button).
>

Some easy steps to check if you have the correct access:
1.  Go to https://github.com/apache/royale-docs/blob/develop/index.md (make
sure you are logged into Github)
2.  Click on the Edit button as shown here: https://snag.gy/xhjDJf.jpg
3.  You should be able to make the edit to the file
4.  You should be able to directly commit the file as shown here:
https://snag.gy/EbIXhA.jpg

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/23/18, 11:22 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>
> >I have logged out of GitHub and logged back in on the browser. GitHub
> >congratulates me for having joined Apache, and shows me the repositories I
> >am involved in, including royale-docs. I don't see any reference to my
> >permissions or how to change them.
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Wetmore 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I got this message from GitHub after I went through the steps you
> >>provided:
> >>
> >> You’ve been added to the Apache Committers team for the The Apache
> >> Software Foundation organization. Apache Committers has 1754 members and
> >> gives *pull* access to 1 apache repository.
> >>
> >> View Apache Committers:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>om%2Forgs%2Fapache=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cd5df6992c6ae4626a2
> >>5708d56296b7df%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365233218432
> >>05718=rR3hsVpL89yt0sz8WtLpAKuY42PBxINLGg3Z5pZ98uY%3D=0
> >> /teams/apache-committers
> >>
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fsgmail.g
> >>ithubmail.com%2Fwf%2Fclick%3Fupn%3DlYxq-2FYU7yocrdKNILYalBmZpY-
> 2BxnLs4kcJ
> >>AUfjzCq7GkOG1YQZlSCqN6VmbvsqBxroUTP-2Fw47jWh0tN9SpajNw-3D-
> 3D_O7ROD4svS-2B
> >>WtZVG4Rcp0QhvxEI4gmG7OYZjHolHwrBblhhvhfpiSI2FSUygyvT6LusUTfZ
> G4FjeAxVCSfc9
> >>D2uDwnoXZ8d34V8QV6JDAwUO4t5OdvrjdxCICgFEQg1ORQ-
> 2Bjh3RcfrRJNcpe908D5adhnvN
> >>rv9UuLf79KyG9yvv43ZAc7p6sSHl4ohcXUMsrV-2BYqjkzY80rK5NY-2BY-
> 2BAxA-2BxFQADK
> >>q58nvEvZNGge5pnB442tPcN-2F3SeGx-2Fupm0LaZxBi-
> 2Bo7k6QBMnruy5-2FZnuOw-3D-3D
> >>=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd5df6992c6ae4626a25708d56296
> b7df%7Cf
> >>a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636523321843361972=
> w69%2F
> >>fQSa4%2BhEl%2BnbdHBd%2B%2By%2FcYSBXwIiUoIPUw1gbrA%3D=0>
> >>
> >> Read more about team permissions here:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.git
> >>hub.com%2Farticl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cd5df6992c6ae4626a257
> >>08d56296b7df%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636523321843361
> >>972=XzP%2FXSv2KgOxFuvefCwvmbSJceg0DyjXfQjCSCPzJ2o%3D=0
> >> es/what-are-the-different-access-permissions
> >>
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fsgmail.g
> >>ithubmail.com%2Fwf%2Fclick%3Fupn%3DH-2FQ3yMxnv4jw-
> 2BxNnSBX80-2FAtA3t7vDbe
> >>tmbWolVUHkKnECwCpEvOzzuUPQYp7N5nJUUw2cmfrHRG97c2sliHmk6ikazv
> voK4oP-2BoW9t
> >>DRWwnJvhbeHJETAFSAZQKFqKT_O7ROD4svS-2BWtZVG4Rcp0QhvxEI4gmG7OYZjHol
> HwrBblh
> >>hvhfpiSI2FSUygyvT6L1EzNJe-2F-2B3EfpIRK8h04q66CM5j4ouS59BNRh
> XJ3iaacoNi8kCu
> >>UmKzbHI-2FdKevDTmUfOeEMewvx0yHikNJHuTcQdz-2FMGcAnk9-
> 2Bm13PMkZ1SrvBgRCUbRS
> >>IGiRRbhUaG1za-2FY6UN1Z-2BdmQrBNgzSv23WcufwG7dh2YLilnP
> endoFRGayV0bYxAAt8H0
> >>T-2BRCdPYmTg8sfHM5SREgjO5y7jVA-3D-3D=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C
> >>d5df6992c6ae4626a25708d56296b7df%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7
> >>C0%7C636523321843361972=Fw%2BolcUfPCpegpEnD94j7paV%
> 2FF3PtPn4aLkKXE1
> >>fh1M%3D=0>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Alex Harui 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> Did you link your GH account with your ASF account?
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes the link doesn't work.
> >>>
> >>> You should have received an email with the subject: "[GitHub] asfgit
> >>>has
> >>> invited you to join the The Apache
> >>> Software Foundation organization".  Make sure it isn't ending up in
> >>> Junk/Spam, but I think you would be able to commit either way.
> >>>
> >>> If you go to GitHub now, does it log you in automatically?  If so,
> >>>logout
> >>> again and close all of your browsers.  Then hit GitHub again to make
> >>>sure
> >>> it doesn't automatically log you in.  Then try the GitBox linking and
> >>>take
> >>> careful notes of what the UI says (or grab screenshots).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> HTH,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 1/23/18, 10:12 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >GitHub tells me I don't have write permissions to the repository when
> >>>I
> >>> am
> >>> >editing a file, and I don't know what step to take to obtain those
> >>> >permissions.
> >>> >
> >>> >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alex Harui 

Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Wetmore 
wrote:

> I have logged out of GitHub and logged back in on the browser. GitHub
> congratulates me for having joined Apache, and shows me the repositories I
> am involved in, including royale-docs. I don't see any reference to my
> permissions or how to change them.
>

You should now have full access to all the repos.  Try editing a file in
place, it should let you to do it now.

Thanks,
Om


>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Wetmore 
> wrote:
>
> > I got this message from GitHub after I went through the steps you
> provided:
> >
> > You’ve been added to the Apache Committers team for the The Apache
> > Software Foundation organization. Apache Committers has 1754 members and
> > gives *pull* access to 1 apache repository.
> >
> > View Apache Committers: https://github.com/orgs/apache
> > /teams/apache-committers
> >  2BxnLs4kcJAUfjzCq7GkOG1YQZlSCqN6VmbvsqBxroUTP-2Fw47jWh0tN9SpajNw-3D-3D_
> O7ROD4svS-2BWtZVG4Rcp0QhvxEI4gmG7OYZjHolHwrBblhhvhfpiSI2FSUygyvT6LusUT
> fZG4FjeAxVCSfc9D2uDwnoXZ8d34V8QV6JDAwUO4t5OdvrjdxCICgFEQg1ORQ-
> 2Bjh3RcfrRJNcpe908D5adhnvNrv9UuLf79KyG9yvv43ZAc7p6sSHl4ohcXU
> MsrV-2BYqjkzY80rK5NY-2BY-2BAxA-2BxFQADKq58nvEvZNGge5pnB442tPc
> N-2F3SeGx-2Fupm0LaZxBi-2Bo7k6QBMnruy5-2FZnuOw-3D-3D>
> >
> > Read more about team permissions here: https://help.github.com/articl
> > es/what-are-the-different-access-permissions
> >  2FAtA3t7vDbetmbWolVUHkKnECwCpEvOzzuUPQYp7N5nJUUw2cmfrHRG97c2
> sliHmk6ikazvvoK4oP-2BoW9tDRWwnJvhbeHJETAFSAZQKFqKT_O7ROD4svS-
> 2BWtZVG4Rcp0QhvxEI4gmG7OYZjHolHwrBblhhvhfpiSI2FSUygyvT6L1EzNJe-2F-
> 2B3EfpIRK8h04q66CM5j4ouS59BNRhXJ3iaacoNi8kCuUmKzbHI-
> 2FdKevDTmUfOeEMewvx0yHikNJHuTcQdz-2FMGcAnk9-2Bm13PMkZ1SrvBgRCUbRSIGiRRbhUa
> G1za-2FY6UN1Z-2BdmQrBNgzSv23WcufwG7dh2YLilnPendoFRGayV0bYxAAt8H0T-
> 2BRCdPYmTg8sfHM5SREgjO5y7jVA-3D-3D>
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Alex Harui 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Did you link your GH account with your ASF account?
> >>
> >> Sometimes the link doesn't work.
> >>
> >> You should have received an email with the subject: "[GitHub] asfgit has
> >> invited you to join the The Apache
> >> Software Foundation organization".  Make sure it isn't ending up in
> >> Junk/Spam, but I think you would be able to commit either way.
> >>
> >> If you go to GitHub now, does it log you in automatically?  If so,
> logout
> >> again and close all of your browsers.  Then hit GitHub again to make
> sure
> >> it doesn't automatically log you in.  Then try the GitBox linking and
> take
> >> careful notes of what the UI says (or grab screenshots).
> >>
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 1/23/18, 10:12 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
> >>
> >> >GitHub tells me I don't have write permissions to the repository when I
> >> am
> >> >editing a file, and I don't know what step to take to obtain those
> >> >permissions.
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alex Harui 
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Andrew,
> >> >>
> >> >> You shouldn't have to open Pull Requests any more.  You should be
> able
> >> >>to
> >> >> directly commit/push to the source and edit the wiki.  Let us know if
> >> >>you
> >> >> are having problems getting that to work.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/23/18, 10:00 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks! I will be using that shortly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Nemi  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Andrew, you can create a folder on github.com same way as you
> >> create
> >> >> >>file,
> >> >> >> just type like "newFolder/newFile". When you have typed "/" github
> >> >>will
> >> >> >> recognize it as a folder.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Sent from:
> >> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
> >> >> >>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> >> >> 40adobe.com
> >> >> >>%7Ccecfcbf5019b4828fba208d5628b250c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> >> cee1%7C
> >> >> >>0%7C0%7C636523272127480801=1fKIlGCF5EwEHkTvM2EnE86ow7GB03
> >> >> cZVgE%2Fvt
> >> >> >>yt2Es%3D=0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >Andrew Wetmore
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
> >> 3A%2F%2Fcottage1
> >> >>>4
> >> >> .
> >> >> >blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> >> 7Ccecfcbf5019b4828fba208
> >> >> >d5628b250c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >> >> 7C636523272127480801
> >> >> >=fKmnHBbbQMEzuMemQpQq7yF1yc9sgbf02c5N3tIg9XM%3D=0
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Andrew Wetmore
> >> >
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%
> >> 

Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I believe you need to switch to the `develop` branch.

Thanks,
Om

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Andrew Wetmore 
wrote:

> I do not see anything there that relates to the demo you did showing the
> ToC for the help documentation. I see two .md pages, just placeholders.
> docpage.html in _layouts seems to just be the code for the Royale main
> page.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>
> > Here it is again.
> >
> > Github Project:
> > https://github.com/apache/royale-docs
> >
> > Clone URL:
> > https://github.com/apache/royale-docs.git
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 1/22/18, 11:02 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
> >
> > >Sorry to be so dense, but I do not see where to find the documentation
> > >project so I can add pages, edit pages, or update the ToC. The links in
> > >Alex's most recent post do not seem to work for me, even when I edit out
> > >the errant "_" that I think my email client inserted at the line break.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14
> > .
> > >blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> > 7Cedd87f7519af4988b4ab08
> > >d561cabe57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> > 7C636522445767082385
> > >=nqzEGEr5QPGcMyugWDqZeisV6rkdQdlUA3YdNor2gq4%3D=0
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>

Re: Migrating existing FlexJS documentation to Royale

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Here is how Electron does it with Github pages:

Documentation result page: https://electronjs.org/docs/api/accelerator
Source code:
https://github.com/electron/electron/blob/master/docs/api/accelerator.md

Some documentation on how this works:
https://github.com/electron/electronjs.org/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#documentation



On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> This is for doc, not code so I'm not sure the issue I raised matters.
>
> That said, I've been reading this [1] and it seems like we should be able
> to set up a few templates sort of like we did flex.a.o and not worry so
> much about customizing a third-party theme.
>
> [1] https://jekyllrb.com/docs
>
> On 1/18/18, 5:28 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Carlos,
> >
> >I like your findings jeckyll theme doc.
> >
> >It looks like we may have again similar issue with license as we have in
> >MDLExample.
> >
> >Can someone raise jira for both cases? Alex raises question on legal
> >couple
> >of days ago. No responses. Let's not wait block us with it - push things
> >forward. Jira could be better to do this.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Piotr
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 02:08 Justin Mclean 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > I think this looks very good and seems to be responsive
> >> >
> >> >
> >>[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fmistic
> >>100.github.io%2Fjekyll-bootstrap-doc=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C
> >>9c168d0de9074f2fc06108d55edbea4f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7
> >>C0%7C636519220978547047=cUfWYBGYEBBEd%
> 2FpwSfe9bxwJd6N%2BmnyMC0pK%2F
> >>EepY8o%3D=0
> >> > [2]
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>om%2Fallejo%2Fjekyll-docs-theme=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C9c168
> >>d0de9074f2fc06108d55edbea4f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C
> >>636519220978547047=hY3xQXdzTO8RFF7COWVNJtd%
> 2BzoXqck04VV68TxcIKFs%3D
> >>=0
> >>
> >> From a quick look this contains CSS code licensed under CC-BY-3.0 (looks
> >> like it comes from bootstrap docs). That may or may not be an issue,
> >> depending on the current conversation around this on legal discuss, and
> >> what you want to do with it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Here is the relevant license text:

=
  All code in any directories or sub-directories that end with *.html or
   *.css is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International
   4.0 License, which full text can be found here:
   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

   As an exception to this license, all html or css that is generated by
   the software at the direction of the user is copyright the user. The
   user has full ownership and control over such content, including
   whether and how they wish to license it.
=

Only code that is under directories that end with .html or .css are CC-4.0
licensed.  Do we see any such directories in our codebase?

Thanks,
Om


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> The legal email is here:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/22458fb5e7e73adaff5345744ba168
> 42c57352
> eab72fd89ae0423327@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to the legal email/jira - I
> >cannot find it. Legal-VP - It means that you have asked one person ?
> >
> >Option 1) I personally don't have enough free time to make such changes in
> >those examples.
> >Option 2) If Legal answer that because of current state of code we cannot
> >host it and we will need change it a lot. - Option 1. - I will grab
> >MDLExample and store it into my private repository.
> >Option 3) Is out of question. They won't do this for sure.
> >
> >We all want to get this release as fast as we can, let's remove examples
> >from this release.
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> >2018-01-17 18:33 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >> Piotr, Carlos,
> >>
> >> Please read and respond.  Others are welcome to give their thoughts as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an
> >> example from Google's MDL repo.  Google's example contains HTML and CSS
> >> files and the example uses text content from the HTML files and CSS from
> >> the CSS files and the content is under CC-BY-4.0 which, from what I can
> >> tell from the background information I've read, is only in Category B
> >> because of a usage restriction and not because it is "copyleft".  The
> >> usage restriction concern is that the ASF does not want CC-BY lines of
> >> code mixed with regular ALv2 code since that would effectively poison
> >>the
> >> ALv2 code.  You wouldn't be able to use it "everywhere".  So I have
> >>asked
> >> VP Legal if, because our CC-BY content is contained in an example and we
> >> prominently label it, there is negligible risk of having other ALv2 code
> >> poisoned.  Even if you were to build your own Blog app from
> >> MDLBLogExample, you are almost certain to replace the text content, and
> >> would probably alter the styles as well, although you would be warned
> >>that
> >> if you don't, CC-BY restrictions apply to your app.
> >>
> >> Unless the VP Legal agrees that the risk is "ok" because we've
> >>prominently
> >> labelled the CC-BY-4.0 content, our choices are (that I have thought of
> >>so
> >> far):
> >> 1) Bundle only the ALv2 stuff and exclude from -bin packages:  This
> >> involves changing the build scripts to download the CSS file.  And
> >>either
> >> replace the text content with something else or also figure out how to
> >>get
> >> the build/download scripts to extract the text content from the HTML
> >>file
> >> (sounds painful).  Users opening the -bin package will not be able to
> >>run
> >> the example.  They will have to build it themselves.
> >> 2) Create an "Extras" repository somewhere.  This is a separate,
> >> non-Apache repo where people could put things that aren't fully ALv2
> >> compliant. Some other ASF projects have Extras on SourceForge.  I think
> >> they have warning signs that code in an Extras repo is not officially
> >> released.  We could post a pre-compiled MDLBlogExample there, but we
> >>still
> >> couldn't bundle it with our regular -bin packages.  There could be a
> >> script in the NPM install that asks if you want it and gets it for you.
> >> We could go back to using an Installer like the Flex Installer so we can
> >> ask everyone if they want MDLBlogExample, but we can't make it
> >> ready-to-run for everyone by default.
> >> 3) Convince Google to change the licensing on their HTML and CSS files.
> >>
> >> All of these options are non-trivial, IMO, and so several folks have
> >> suggested temporarily removing MDLBlogExample from this first release
> >> until we hear back from VP Legal or execute on one of these options.
> >>
> >> MDLExample is currently being treated like MDLBlogExample.  That's
> >>because
> >> I think it is trying to replicate some of the examples from material.io
> >> and is directly using some CSS and I think some text from some HTML
> >>files
> >> in the MDL 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:



On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
>to
>fix the IP issues in our next release.

Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should we
make it work or skip around it or remove it?


I think that was just an experiment.  We can in fact delete it from the
codebase.

I will get to it unless anyone else gets to it before me.

Thanks,
Om


-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Thanks Olaf!  Good to know that we don't have that restriction anymore.
>
> I'd like to get Piotr and Carlos's opinions about removing the MDL
> examples since they worked so hard on it.  I'm finishing up changing the
> file headers to reflect that these two examples are under Google's
> copyright and license.
>

+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way to
fix the IP issues in our next release.

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/16/18, 12:47 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:
>
> >Alex, it works [1]
> >
> >Regarding the MDL examples:
> >If there still IP and license issues left I would like to suggest to
> >remove
> >the affected examples from RC2 until we've resolved those problems. (I am
> >not sure if you already did it).
> >
> >Regarding the [y]/[n] questions during the approval:
> >During my tests, I've always entered [y] like a monkey with the focus on
> >testing the script.
> >What does this question about 'unexpected binaries' [2] mean and how
> >should
> >I check it?
> >
> >However, I am looking forward to the RC2 and, hopefully, a smooth release
> >process :-)
> >Thanks for your patient!
> >
> >Olaf
> >
> >
> >[1]
> >BUILD SUCCESSFUL
> >Total time: 34 minutes 42 seconds
> >
> >[2]
> >Check that there are no unexpected binaries.  Is it ok? (y, [n])
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >C066714a0a4d14f01d85808d55d22621f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7
> >C0%7C636517324616345561=RtRvGTu1N2FPJSB7Y3np6Q%
> 2Fn%2BIZzYHCg5%2F%2Bi
> >b%2BUnN%2Bc%3D=0
>
>

Re: Apache Royale website is live!!

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

In a perfect world, we will let content editors provide content, patches
and PRs.

There are wordpress plugins available that read markdown files from Github
urls. For example https://wordpress.org/plugins/mytory-markdown/

This way, the content can be in git and form(styles, images, etc) can be on
WP.

Thoughts?

Om

On Jan 10, 2018 2:19 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> @Andrew, I ask you to make changes to the doc in order to check things
> done, and comment if there's some questions. I introduced all changes, and
> uploaded to git. We must wait until automatic publication
>
> @Dave, I can look for a way to make people make changes and ask for
> revision (anyone out there) or give direct (committers and PMCs)
> regarding more automation I see it more dificult since the process is to :
>
> 1.- Push Generate Button (to create the static version)
> 2.- overlay with actual repo (there we can have content or theme updates
> that fixes some things in layouts, css, etc... and so on)
> 3.- commit and push
> 4.- wait for automatic publication
>
> But that's no a problem for me needs human touch, but is easy to do.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> 2018-01-10 22:33 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Piotr has a good point. Please work with Andrew on the content updates.
> > Some may be in the template and other parts are content.
> >
> > Regarding content it should be possible for any committer to make
> changes.
> > At first you will need to periodically do export and update. Later either
> > we will have moved the site to Royale and be using a build process, or
> you
> > would setup an automated process into a staged site that is then
> published.
> > This is what the Apache CMS can do.
> >
> > An alternative approach that I have used at my former job is to create an
> > RSS content feed in WP and then we can pull updates from the RSS feed
> into
> > the site. A custom feed is possible to retrieve metadata.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Jan 10, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > What do you think about Andrew changes. I think they are really good.
> We
> > > could apply them on our self.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Piotr
> > >
> > > 2018-01-10 22:21 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Om,
> > >>
> > >> that's not possible. We're making all changes in WP through admin and
> > then
> > >> exported and published.
> > >> something out of this workflow will not be possible.
> > >>
> > >> However, I could see some WP system for people to register in WP
> backend
> > >> and make changes and send for approval. I think there's some ways to
> do
> > >> that if there's enough interest.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> 2018-01-10 20:26 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>
> > >>> I think a better approach would be for Andrew to send a Pull Request
> to
> > >>> https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/asf-site.
> > >>> Carlos/Piotr, is that possible, given the current state of how the
> > >> website
> > >>> is being deployed?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Om
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Rovira <
> > carlosrov...@apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Andrew,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> thanks for the revision! :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you want to share only text, you could make a list and post
> > directly
> > >>> in
> > >>>> this list, open a new thread
> > >>>> If you want to attach screenshots, you can upload a PDF or something
> > >> like
> > >>>> that and share in a service you like (dropbox, google drive...)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2018-01-10 19:36 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Attached files would be also stripped out. Just upload that file to
> > >>> some
> > >>>>> server Onedrive or

Re: Apache Royale website is live!!

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Andrew, we most definitely appreciate your feedback.  Via PRs or otherwise,
please continue to share your feedback :-)
Personally, I would love to see someone like you 'take over' the website
content.

Thanks,
Om

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You want me to do a pull request and make changes?
>
> I would prefer to share my observations, as what I see as an error others
> might see as a feature(!).
>
> Here's a Google Doc of edits I suggest for footer, the landing page, and
> the mailing-lists page:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11AcoTH9U40WhRt3_
> 8vEReXi29tZrRS5_Wx7xQ1QBUcU/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Does that work as a way to share this stuff? If so, I will continue bit by
> bit through the whole site.
>
> I ran documentation teams for about fifteen years for various software
> companies, and was on the receiving end of a lot of irked comments from
> potential customers who found small but distracting mistakes in website or
> help-documentation texts. Since fixing issues like this is nearly free, I
> hope we can do that even if the current text is "good enough" for most
> readers.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:26 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I think a better approach would be for Andrew to send a Pull Request to
> > https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/asf-site.
> > Carlos/Piotr, is that possible, given the current state of how the
> website
> > is being deployed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > thanks for the revision! :)
> > >
> > > If you want to share only text, you could make a list and post directly
> > in
> > > this list, open a new thread
> > > If you want to attach screenshots, you can upload a PDF or something
> like
> > > that and share in a service you like (dropbox, google drive...)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > 2018-01-10 19:36 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Attached files would be also stripped out. Just upload that file to
> > some
> > > > server Onedrive or something like that. You can also make pull
> request
> > to
> > > > the repository [1], branch asf-site.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/asf-site
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for that! :)
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-10 19:07 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > There are quite a number of small issues. I would prefer to create
> > > table
> > > > > (existing text, proposed new text, and notes if any) and share
> that.
> > > Can
> > > > I
> > > > > just attach a Word doc to a message in this list?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <
> > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where are you seeing that text? If you send some screenshot it
> can
> > be
> > > > > > stripped out from the mailing list.
> > > > > > You can use nabble to post a screenshot [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Piotr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 18:20 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excellent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However...there is some pretty odd text here and there. Is
> > someone
> > > > > > handling
> > > > > > > text tweaking?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_
> > > > > > source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Virus-free.
> > > > > > > www.avast.com
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > 

Re: Apache Royale website is live!!

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I think a better approach would be for Andrew to send a Pull Request to
https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/asf-site.
Carlos/Piotr, is that possible, given the current state of how the website
is being deployed?

Thanks,
Om

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> thanks for the revision! :)
>
> If you want to share only text, you could make a list and post directly in
> this list, open a new thread
> If you want to attach screenshots, you can upload a PDF or something like
> that and share in a service you like (dropbox, google drive...)
>
> Thanks!
>
> 2018-01-10 19:36 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Attached files would be also stripped out. Just upload that file to some
> > server Onedrive or something like that. You can also make pull request to
> > the repository [1], branch asf-site.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/asf-site
> >
> > Thanks for that! :)
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-10 19:07 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore :
> >
> > > There are quite a number of small issues. I would prefer to create
> table
> > > (existing text, proposed new text, and notes if any) and share that.
> Can
> > I
> > > just attach a Word doc to a message in this list?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > Where are you seeing that text? If you send some screenshot it can be
> > > > stripped out from the mailing list.
> > > > You can use nabble to post a screenshot [1]
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Piotr
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 18:20 Andrew Wetmore 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Excellent.
> > > > >
> > > > > However...there is some pretty odd text here and there. Is someone
> > > > handling
> > > > > text tweaking?
> > > > >
> > > > > <
> > > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_
> > > > source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > > > > >
> > > > > Virus-free.
> > > > > www.avast.com
> > > > > <
> > > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_
> > > > source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > > > > >
> > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <
> > > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > <3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Carlos! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-01-10 17:03 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > just say that Apache Royale website is live now! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > >
> > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:

> The ApproveRoyale script fails for me [1][2].
> I've just installed ant on my Windows 10 machine and followed the
> instructions.
>
> I have to admit that I have no experience with ant...
> Does it mean that the script is not "well-formed"?
> Or does it mean that the error "The release version is not set" occurs?
>
> Or do I something wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
> [1] Ant error message (translated from german)
> BUILD FAILED
> C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:83:
> Character "<" is not allowed for value of attribute "message" which is
> linked with element type "fail"
>
> [1] Row 83:
>  -Drelease.version=release version (e.g. 3.1, 3.2, etc)>"
> unless="release.version"/>
>
>
What was the command you ran?  It should be this:
ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1

Thanks,
Om


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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

As mentioned in the VOTE thread, I had unit tests failing while building
the compiler with Maven.  The full console log is available here [1]

Thanks,
Om

[1] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/146e95749626a54dd2a6a2937c9591c0

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:

> I'll try to do test it tonight but I am not sure if I had already use maven
> with my current machine... I will check it out.
>
> >3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
>
> I guess this should be namend as settings-template.xml?
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

-1 Binding

* MD5 matches
* Signature valid
* README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE look good
* Installation via NPM successful
* Able to cross-compile apps successfully with mxml from npm
* royale-compiler>mvn clean install -P -main,utils works fine

royale-compiler>mvn clean install
Unit test failure.

Let's try to fix this unit test before releasing.  More details in the
DISCUSS thread.

Thanks,
Om


On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:47 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> One small correction.  These are the correct npm install commands:
>
> npm install https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.0/rc1/
> binaries/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz -g
>
> npm install https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.0/rc1/
> binaries/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz -g
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is vote for the 0.9.0 release of Apache Royale.
>>
>> The release candidate can be found here;
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.0/rc1/
>>
>> Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF requirements on
>> approving a release?', at:
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>
>> At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>> - MD5 and signed packages are correct
>> - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>> - That the build script completes successfully
>> - That you can compile and cross-compile a simple example using the SDK.
>>
>> The source package is a combination of the 3 main Royale repos
>>
>> To use the binary package, unzip it into a folder.  The -js package is
>> ready-to-use in an IDE or command-line.  If you need SWF output, use the
>> -royale package and use Apache Ant to run the InstallAdobeSDKs script via:
>>   ant -f InstallAdobeSDKs.xml
>>
>> You may also get the binary packages via NPM.  The -js package can be
>> installed via:
>>
>> npm install
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/${release.vers
>> ion}/rc${rc}/bi
>> naries/apache-royale-jsonly-${release.version}-bin.tar.gz
>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/$%7Brelease.version%7D/rc$%7Brc%7D/binaries/apache-royale-jsonly-$%7Brelease.version%7D-bin.tar.gz>
>> -g
>>
>> The full package with SWF support can be installed via:
>>
>> npm install
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/${release.vers
>> ion}/rc{rc}/bin
>> aries/apache-royale-${release.version}-bin.tar.gz
>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/$%7Brelease.version%7D/rc%7Brc%7D/binaries/apache-royale-$%7Brelease.version%7D-bin.tar.gz>
>> -g
>>
>>
>> Please vote to approve this release:
>> +1 Approve the release
>> -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>>
>> The vote passes if there is:
>> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>> - More positive votes than negative votes
>>
>> Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so I expect there
>> will be many bugs found.  IMO the goal is not to try to find and fix bugs
>> in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
>> functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
>>
>> People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
>> vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
>> PMC votes.
>>
>> When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
>> version you tested with.
>>
>> For your convenience, there is an ant script that automates the common
>> steps to validate a release.  Instead of individually downloading the
>> package and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
>> 1) create an empty folder,
>> 2) download into that folder this file:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.0/rc1/ApproveRoyale.xml
>> 3) run the script:
>>ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1
>>
>> You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages
>> and build results are always encouraged.
>>
>>
>> Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
>> this VOTE thread.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex Harui
>>
>>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Olaf Krueger <m...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:

> OmPrakash Muppirala wrote
> > Olaf, do I have your permission to commit this code into the Apache
> github
> > repo?  Once I put that in, more folks can start contributing.
>
> I've just committed it to [1].
> (Cause I've accidentally committed it to master at first the master history
> is polluted a bit)
> If I've overlooked that you've already committed it somewhere feel free to
> remove it.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/royale-website/tree/develop


I've committed my change as well.  I've updated the Readme with
instructions on how to to setup and test locally.

Thanks,
Om


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

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Here is a screenshot in the meantime :-)

https://snag.gy/ElDsMR.jpg

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Cool :)
>
> Waiting to your commit! :)
>
> 2017-12-20 11:12 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Update:  I have the UI hooked up.  It's starting to resemble a real app
> now
> > :-)
> >
> > Erik, can I haz the VM details, please?  I would like to deploy this
> > somewhere so folks can take a look.
> >
> > Olaf, do I have your permission to commit this code into the Apache
> github
> > repo?  Once I put that in, more folks can start contributing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Olaf,
> > >
> > > Looking forward to your first commit! :) I will review it with pleasure
> > :)
> > >
> > > Thanks, Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-12-19 20:21 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger <m...@olafkrueger.net>:
> > >
> > > > >Olaf, that worked!
> > > >
> > > > Great :-)
> > > >
> > > > >I'm going to try and add some UI around this.
> > > > I am also started to work on this but of course, you are welcome to
> go
> > > > ahead!!
> > > > Keep in mind that you maybe have to take care of
> > SOP(Same-Origin-Policy)
> > > > related issues when you try to call the service from a Royale/HTML
> > client
> > > > that is executed from your local file system.
> > > > We maybe should serve the client from the same origin as the service.
> > > >
> > > > >Do you want to simply check this into our apache github repo?
> > > > Yes, as soon as I am able to login to the repo. I am sorry but I
> never
> > > > tried
> > > > it since we are Royale cause I fear the effort ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help!!
> > > >
> > > > Olaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Update:  I have the UI hooked up.  It's starting to resemble a real app now
:-)

Erik, can I haz the VM details, please?  I would like to deploy this
somewhere so folks can take a look.

Olaf, do I have your permission to commit this code into the Apache github
repo?  Once I put that in, more folks can start contributing.

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Olaf,
>
> Looking forward to your first commit! :) I will review it with pleasure :)
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2017-12-19 20:21 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
>
> > >Olaf, that worked!
> >
> > Great :-)
> >
> > >I'm going to try and add some UI around this.
> > I am also started to work on this but of course, you are welcome to go
> > ahead!!
> > Keep in mind that you maybe have to take care of SOP(Same-Origin-Policy)
> > related issues when you try to call the service from a Royale/HTML client
> > that is executed from your local file system.
> > We maybe should serve the client from the same origin as the service.
> >
> > >Do you want to simply check this into our apache github repo?
> > Yes, as soon as I am able to login to the repo. I am sorry but I never
> > tried
> > it since we are Royale cause I fear the effort ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for your help!!
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Re: mxmlc - build debug only?

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Yes, that is what I was looking for.  Thank you!

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> If -debug=true, mxmlc will generate bin/js-debug only.
>
> Is that what you are asking?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/17, 10:25 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it possible to run the debug build only, using mxmlc?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Olaf, that worked!

I'm going to try and add some UI around this.

Do you want to simply check this into our apache github repo?

Thanks,
Om

On Dec 18, 2017 1:37 PM, "Olaf Krueger" <m...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:

> OmPrakash Muppirala wrote
> > Can you give an
> > example of what the POST payload should look like?
>
> I've tested it by using this example [1].
> (It contains some unnecessary /t/r, but it works for me)
> Just copy and paste it to e.g. Postman.
>
> Hope this helps, thanks for testing!
> If I'll found enough time I'll publish a simple client soon so that testing
> will be easier.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
> [1] https://gist.github.com/ok-at-github/6eca129339350d367aaca4a440ab639a
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>

Re: Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> I have not tested the royale-swf package and I wouldn't be surprised if
> that package needs help since it does have a script that downloads other
> stuff, so it would be a great help if you could make sure that package is
> working and that npm installs of the nightly builds works in general.
>

So, with the new folder structure of the binary artifacts, what exactly
needs to be downloaded?

Today we download these:

Adobe Air
Falcon
FlexJS (I know this is not required anymore)
FlashPlayerGlobal
FlatUI
SWFObject.

Thanks,
Om



>
> I also wondered as I was copying the old FlexJS scripts into the Royale
> repo how those post-install scripts handle the difference between Mac and
> Windows for downloading AIR SDKs.  Verifying that works for Mac and Win
> would be helpful as well, especially now that Mac AIR SDKs are DMG files.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/18/17, 10:26 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay, this is one way to do it which I am not too opposed to.
> >
> >So, at this point, I assume there is nothing else to do to as far as npm
> >goes?
> >
> >How can I help?
> >
> >I will leave my branch as is in case we decide to go that route at a later
> >point of time.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Dec 18, 2017 10:04 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> That is the question I've been asking for several posts now.  AIUI, when
> >> you publish a package in NPM, the package is copied to NPM's servers.
> >>
> >> This post [3] implies that we should not use "npm publish" on anything
> >> that isn't released.
> >>
> >> So my conclusion, and what I checked in, was two NPM packages (royale
> >>and
> >> royale-swf) that are the same as the binary convenience package
> >>generated
> >> by Ant, since I think the NPM package must be generated by a build of
> >>the
> >> source package.  To get a nightly, you use:
> >>
> >>   npm install 
> >>
> >> The royale and royale-swf packages have different URLs up on the CI
> >>server.
> >>
> >> To get the RC versions some day, you would run:
> >>
> >>   npm install
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
> 3A%2F%2Fdist.a.o%
> >>2Fdev%2Froyale%2Frc1%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C3b7528a1b1794
> >>ae1c2c908d54644ef3f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
> 7C0%7C0%7C63649218
> >>4244391614=d%2FWzPpXZkvvcZHzBBkeadPlM35meS2s4eQnfrmp
> ctjU%3D
> >>d=0
> >>
> >> It is my understanding that when the vote passes, the release manager
> >> script will move the bits from dist.a.o/dev to dist.a.o/release and can
> >> just run "npm publish" for both royale and royale-swf and it will copy
> >>the
> >> convenience packages to NPM's servers and then when folks do:
> >>
> >>   npm install royale (or royale-swf)
> >>
> >> It will download that package and no mirrors are involved at all (which
> >> reduces a point of failure for us).
> >>
> >> Again, I am an NPM newbie, so maybe I am making a bad assumption, but
> >>this
> >> is my understanding based on the links I've presented.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> [3]
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
> 3A%2F%2Fstackove
> >>rflow.com%2Fquestions%2F21355508%2Fpublish-=02%7C01%
> 7Caharui%40adobe
> >>.com%7C3b7528a1b1794ae1c2c908d54644ef3f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387
> 94aed2c178decee
> >>1%7C0%7C0%7C636492184244391614=W0Zj1lQd7OYFnZ6tUd9km
> epdXhJjtJhTpa%2
> >>Bg03HiPWk%3D=0
> >> development-version-of
> >> -npm-package
> >>
> >> On 12/18/17, 9:19 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>Muppirala"
> >> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We need multiple versions of package json: release jsonly, nightly
> >>jsonly,
> >> >rc jsonly, release jsandswf, nightly jsandswf, rc jsandswf.
> >> >
> >> >Nightly and rc builds need to be loaded from static urls, wheras
> >>releases
> >> >need to be loaded from a mirror.   Where will mirror url resolution
> >>take
> >> >place?
> >&

Re: Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Okay, this is one way to do it which I am not too opposed to.

So, at this point, I assume there is nothing else to do to as far as npm
goes?

How can I help?

I will leave my branch as is in case we decide to go that route at a later
point of time.

Thanks,
Om

On Dec 18, 2017 10:04 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> That is the question I've been asking for several posts now.  AIUI, when
> you publish a package in NPM, the package is copied to NPM's servers.
>
> This post [3] implies that we should not use "npm publish" on anything
> that isn't released.
>
> So my conclusion, and what I checked in, was two NPM packages (royale and
> royale-swf) that are the same as the binary convenience package generated
> by Ant, since I think the NPM package must be generated by a build of the
> source package.  To get a nightly, you use:
>
>   npm install 
>
> The royale and royale-swf packages have different URLs up on the CI server.
>
> To get the RC versions some day, you would run:
>
>   npm install http://dist.a.o/dev/royale/rc1/
>
> It is my understanding that when the vote passes, the release manager
> script will move the bits from dist.a.o/dev to dist.a.o/release and can
> just run "npm publish" for both royale and royale-swf and it will copy the
> convenience packages to NPM's servers and then when folks do:
>
>   npm install royale (or royale-swf)
>
> It will download that package and no mirrors are involved at all (which
> reduces a point of failure for us).
>
> Again, I am an NPM newbie, so maybe I am making a bad assumption, but this
> is my understanding based on the links I've presented.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> [3]
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21355508/publish-
> development-version-of
> -npm-package
>
> On 12/18/17, 9:19 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We need multiple versions of package json: release jsonly, nightly jsonly,
> >rc jsonly, release jsandswf, nightly jsandswf, rc jsandswf.
> >
> >Nightly and rc builds need to be loaded from static urls, wheras releases
> >need to be loaded from a mirror.   Where will mirror url resolution take
> >place?
> >
> >How are you planning to support this in your approach?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >On Dec 18, 2017 8:45 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Om,
> >
> >My logic is that package.json goes into a binary artifact for NPM, so at
> >some point, we are supposed to vote on package.json being correct.  If you
> >modify package.json after the vote, or don't put in in a source artifact,
> >we are technically releasing an unapproved file.
> >
> >If we find something wrong with any of our binary artifacts, we probably
> >have to cut another release if it requires a change to any file in our
> >source package to fix it.  Why is NPM a bigger risk for problems than
> >Maven or Ant?
> >
> >Testing changes to NPM packaging shouldn't require waiting for the CI
> >server.  You run the build locally, and run "npm install  >folder or gzip>"  See [2]
> >
> >Scripting string replacement to change the package URL from the CI server
> >to the mirror system is potentially tricky.  We did that for Flex and the
> >Installer and sometimes I had to manually correct it, and I was glad to
> >see that we didn't need it in Royale if we had NPM distribute the binary
> >package.
> >
> >It looks to me that NPM has a "convention" to use URLs for nightly builds
> >and that we should use it, and not create our own, or have to rely on the
> >mirror system either.  That's what I had checked in.  The thing I liked
> >about it was that when you installed the js-only package, no further
> >scripts needed to be run.  The package is self contained and didn't need
> >to go out to another server.
> >
> >What I checked in I thought was more conforming to NPM's conventions and
> >reduced a point of failure by not relying on the mirror system.  But I'm
> >an NPM newbie, so I may be missing something.
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >[2]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.npmj
> >s.com%2Fhow-npm-works%2Fpackages=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C4e762
> >d4c0a6340f2307408d5463b8432%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6
> >36492143796733169=MF%2FOg7za7B0K0g7aMIoXMn%
> 2BeS41nz4f3Do%2B17u7dzdU%
> >3D=0
> >
> >On 12/18/17, 1:14 AM, "omup...

Re: Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

We need multiple versions of package json: release jsonly, nightly jsonly,
rc jsonly, release jsandswf, nightly jsandswf, rc jsandswf.

Nightly and rc builds need to be loaded from static urls, wheras releases
need to be loaded from a mirror.   Where will mirror url resolution take
place?

How are you planning to support this in your approach?

Thanks,
Om


On Dec 18, 2017 8:45 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

Hi Om,

My logic is that package.json goes into a binary artifact for NPM, so at
some point, we are supposed to vote on package.json being correct.  If you
modify package.json after the vote, or don't put in in a source artifact,
we are technically releasing an unapproved file.

If we find something wrong with any of our binary artifacts, we probably
have to cut another release if it requires a change to any file in our
source package to fix it.  Why is NPM a bigger risk for problems than
Maven or Ant?

Testing changes to NPM packaging shouldn't require waiting for the CI
server.  You run the build locally, and run "npm install "  See [2]

Scripting string replacement to change the package URL from the CI server
to the mirror system is potentially tricky.  We did that for Flex and the
Installer and sometimes I had to manually correct it, and I was glad to
see that we didn't need it in Royale if we had NPM distribute the binary
package.

It looks to me that NPM has a "convention" to use URLs for nightly builds
and that we should use it, and not create our own, or have to rely on the
mirror system either.  That's what I had checked in.  The thing I liked
about it was that when you installed the js-only package, no further
scripts needed to be run.  The package is self contained and didn't need
to go out to another server.

What I checked in I thought was more conforming to NPM's conventions and
reduced a point of failure by not relying on the mirror system.  But I'm
an NPM newbie, so I may be missing something.

-Alex

[2] https://docs.npmjs.com/how-npm-works/packages

On 12/18/17, 1:14 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Om,
>>
>> I'm not sure what your definition of "direct dependency" is, but we
>> already have Maven stuff in the source package so we can directly
>>publish
>> Maven artifacts to Maven central.  What is wrong with having NPM stuff
>>in
>> the source package as well?
>>
>
>If something went wrong with an npm release, we will need a new release of
>the Source and Binary artifacts.  That takes a much longer time.  We
>should
>avoid a scenario like the dependency between the SDK and the Installer,
>which sometimes requires a new release of SDK for pushing out changes to
>the Installer.
>
>
>>
>> The plan is currently to run the Maven release steps, which will create
>>a
>> set of 3 source artifacts (one per-repo), then run an Ant script that
>> turns those 3 source artifacts into one source artifact that we vote on,
>> along with two IDE-friendly binary artifacts (with and without SWF
>> support), and dozens of Maven SWCs and JARs, and, as the scripts
>>are/were
>> currently setup, the two IDE-friendly binary artifacts should have been
>> valid NPM artifacts.  Once the vote is approved, the Maven artifacts go
>>to
>> Maven Central, the IDE-friendly artifacts go to dist.a.o, and
>> theoretically, those same artifacts get published to NPM (unmodified).
>> And that can all be scripted.
>>
>
>I don't get the part where it has to be unmodified.  Right now, if I need
>to change the package.json, I need to push a fix, wait for a nightly build
>before I can test it out.  If we do it my way, composing the npm package
>is
>a completely separate process without having to wait for sdk changes to be
>propagated.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know NPM that well, so maybe something does have to change in
>> package.json before actual publication, but if not, I don't understand
>>why
>> the RM should need to do more than just run "npm publish" once or twice.
>> IMO, it is sort of cheating to modify package.json or any other files
>> after a vote on those files to create the NPM artifacts.
>>
>
>Only if package.json is part of the source artifact.  I don't see the need
>to have package.json file and other npm related scripts in the source or
>binary artifacts.
>
>
>>
>> Also, I think I proved that the Ant script on the CI server can create
>> valid NPM artifacts for nightly builds.  I would think we would want
>>that
>> instead of needing some manual 

Re: Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> I'm not sure what your definition of "direct dependency" is, but we
> already have Maven stuff in the source package so we can directly publish
> Maven artifacts to Maven central.  What is wrong with having NPM stuff in
> the source package as well?
>

If something went wrong with an npm release, we will need a new release of
the Source and Binary artifacts.  That takes a much longer time.  We should
avoid a scenario like the dependency between the SDK and the Installer,
which sometimes requires a new release of SDK for pushing out changes to
the Installer.


>
> The plan is currently to run the Maven release steps, which will create a
> set of 3 source artifacts (one per-repo), then run an Ant script that
> turns those 3 source artifacts into one source artifact that we vote on,
> along with two IDE-friendly binary artifacts (with and without SWF
> support), and dozens of Maven SWCs and JARs, and, as the scripts are/were
> currently setup, the two IDE-friendly binary artifacts should have been
> valid NPM artifacts.  Once the vote is approved, the Maven artifacts go to
> Maven Central, the IDE-friendly artifacts go to dist.a.o, and
> theoretically, those same artifacts get published to NPM (unmodified).
> And that can all be scripted.
>

I don't get the part where it has to be unmodified.  Right now, if I need
to change the package.json, I need to push a fix, wait for a nightly build
before I can test it out.  If we do it my way, composing the npm package is
a completely separate process without having to wait for sdk changes to be
propagated.


>
> I don't know NPM that well, so maybe something does have to change in
> package.json before actual publication, but if not, I don't understand why
> the RM should need to do more than just run "npm publish" once or twice.
> IMO, it is sort of cheating to modify package.json or any other files
> after a vote on those files to create the NPM artifacts.
>

Only if package.json is part of the source artifact.  I don't see the need
to have package.json file and other npm related scripts in the source or
binary artifacts.


>
> Also, I think I proved that the Ant script on the CI server can create
> valid NPM artifacts for nightly builds.  I would think we would want that
> instead of needing some manual step to make nightly builds available for
> NPM users.
>

Anything that is manual can be scripted.  My goal is to make an "publish to
npm" script available that can be tacked on to the current release
process.


>
> It sounds like you are basically reverting all of the NPM work I just did.
> :-(


I'm sorry about that.  I was not paying attention to your commits in this
area. What exactly am I reverting?  The stuff I am doing right now is in
addition to what you have already done.


> How were you planning to provide nightly builds and not modify
> approved sources to publish NPM artifacts?


I sent a couple of emails about this a while ago.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/86253b3e04f138d7c4ed6f1769c2654da6d47b8ca10c88b7dc582d91@%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/66e1ee3ce5ce0294b18913c83c794a8819893ba9bb73e77f55b5cfce@%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E

I am yet to get to this part.  But we need to sort off agree on a path
before I can proceed.


>   I'm shutting down for tonight
> so I'll pick this up in the morning.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/17/17, 11:42 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Om,
> >>
> >> One thing I'm confused about:  When I read about NPM publishing [1], it
> >> sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that
> >> folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded off of one
> >> of our servers.  But it looks like the old FlexJS script and now these
> >> scripts are trying to download the binaries off of one of our servers.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.npm
> >>js.com%2Fgetting-started%2Fpublishing-npm-packages&
> data=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> >>40adobe.com%7Cc45ced0b53984ddecf5208d545eb06c2%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636491798101208728=
> T3Ym%2BwQPX15EKsN7rWAZhtttSDv
> >>KxYARMMi3KiZqTd4%3D=0
> >
> >
> >I am a bit unclear on your how you are thinking of publishing to npm.  You
> >want to simply

Re: Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Om




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

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

Why "Air" and not "SWF"?

Not sure I understand your logic.
-Alex


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

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

Unless of course I am wrong.

Thanks,
Om



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

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

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Dec 17, 2017 1:57 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

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

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

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

I will continue with implementing the client by using Royale.

Thanks,
Olaf

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


Nice! I will give this a try very soon.

Thanks,
Om






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

Testing npm deployment

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

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

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

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

Thanks,
Om

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
wrote:

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

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

Thanks,
Om



>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm making progress on this front.
> >
> > I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
> > figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
> >
> > Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
> > apache-royale-with-swf?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
> > >
> > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
> > >
> > > sudo npm install -g
> > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
> > > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> > >
> > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download
> and
> > > unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be
> something
> > > about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
> > > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > > Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
> >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
> > > >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
> > > >>contain
> > > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and
> some
> > > >> slightly different settings.
> > > >>
> > > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and
> settings
> > > >>so
> > > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Alex
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
> > > >know
> > > >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather
> have
> > > >the
> > > >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
> > scripts
> > > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
> > download
> > > >external dependencies if needed.
> > > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without
> having
> > > >to
> > > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Om
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> > > >> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
> > > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
> > > >> >That makes it much clearer.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Thanks,
> > > >> >Om
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
> > <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
> > it
> > > >>and
> > > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
> > "ant
> > > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.
> I
> > &

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I'm making progress on this front.

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

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

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

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

Re: Slider Component

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Peter Ent  wrote:

> I've pushed changes to the Slider component and resolved (I hope) most of
> the issues listed below by Justin. Only one, having to do with arrow keys,
> should be resolved or at least improved. The arrow keys should be
> addressed by a keyboard controller bead.
>
> I included a VerticalSliderLayout as well as VSliderMouseController
> (you'll need both to do vertical sliders). I may roll this into a VSlider
> for Express.
>
> I also renamed SliderMouseController to HSliderMouseController to be
> consistent. I checked other projects and found only Flat to have used that
> directly.
>
> ‹peter
>

Thanks for fixing this, Peter.  Just one request, in your commit message,
if you include the issue number in this format: #99, it will link the
commit with the issue.  This will be very useful for tracking changes in
future.

Regards,
Om


>
> On 12/12/17, 5:21 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:
>
> >HI,
> >
> >A while back I raised several issues with the slider component, if you
> >happen if fix any of these issues please close them. [1][2][3][4][5]
> >
> >I note for instance the slider still incorrectly gives the value NaN when
> >you click on the track.
> >The issue arises in this line in the calcValFromMousePosition method:
> >
> >var deltaX:Number = (useOffset ? event.offsetX : event.clientX) - origin;
> >
> >As when you click on the track offsetX is not contained in the event.
> >
> >A fix (in the PR) is to change the line to:
> >var deltaX:Number = (event.offsetX && useOffset ? event.offsetX :
> >event.clientX) - origin;
> >
> >I would normally use event.offsetX !== undefined rather than just
> >event.offsetX but this project seems to have an aversion to using the
> >strict equality / inequality operators.
> >
> >There may of course be other ways to fix this issue.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
> >
> >1.
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F86=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com
> %7Cc
> >1fc0a17ee274829d1d708d541aeb58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >%7C636487140985163005=JkssfIJkd4YohkXMZ0ZCy98hK6ok38
> S3KShzzVr4hQE%3D
> >=0
> >2.
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F84=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com
> %7Cc
> >1fc0a17ee274829d1d708d541aeb58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >%7C636487140985163005=s%2F83hm8ZBh5fIcPEMfbdmIliNYm6XV
> u1ev%2BjHaQF%2
> >BNI%3D=0
> >3.
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F83=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com
> %7Cc
> >1fc0a17ee274829d1d708d541aeb58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >%7C636487140985163005=bnFSx8JXgOHwGQpBbAfihAZpgYXw%
> 2BJeqg%2F9y4sfKii
> >w%3D=0
> >4.
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F82=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com
> %7Cc
> >1fc0a17ee274829d1d708d541aeb58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >%7C636487140985163005=erh8n5SMNZB%2Ff%
> 2FEKl0lxw3TS8wsFMzZ44e4GPxbYu7
> >I%3D=0
> >5.
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F81=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com
> %7Cc
> >1fc0a17ee274829d1d708d541aeb58e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0
> >%7C636487140985163005=kK2sjhS0r71MgTlE7VE2XGGA1q6DUX
> irc%2B%2BH3Dh4d4
> >s%3D=0
> >
>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
That makes it much clearer.

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building it and
> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
>
> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant
> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I think
> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the -jsonly-
> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing to see
> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the other
> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff,
> which might need tuning.
>
> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly builds so
> you could do something like:
>
>   npm install http://s.apache.org/Royale090NightlyBuild
>
> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.  Right now
> it is:
>
>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
>
> A while back I suggested:
>
>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
>
> Another option is:
>
>   apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support.
>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
>
> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package name
> for the package with SWF support.
>
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM.  I think I messed up
> >the Ant script.  Looking into it now.
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>Muppirala"
> >><omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work.  We'll see after the CI
> >>>server builds it.  In theory, you will be able to run:
> >>>
> >>>npm install
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl
> >>>e
> >>>x
> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%
> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil=
> >>>0
> >>>2
> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156
> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >>>7
> >>>b
> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&
> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE
> >>>E
> >>>Z
> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D=0
> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> >>>
> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package.  Alternatively, you run:
> >>>
> >>>npm install
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl
> >>>e
> >>>x
> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%
> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil=
> >>>0
> >>>2
> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156
> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >>>7
> >>>b
> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&
> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE
> >>>E
> >>>Z
> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D=0
> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well?
> >>
> >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs
> >>code did.  However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since
> >>other
> >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework,
> >>falcon, swfobject).
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>-Alex
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sounds good.  I will start working on this today.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Om
> >
>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:



On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>I just pushed changes to see if it can work.  We'll see after the CI
>server builds it.  In theory, you will be able to run:
>
>npm install
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex
>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil=02
>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ
>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D=0
>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>
>And it should install the JSOnlu package.  Alternatively, you run:
>
>npm install
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex
>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil=02
>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ
>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D=0
>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
>
>
>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well?

No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs
code did.  However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since other
things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework,
falcon, swfobject).

Thanks,
-Alex
>

Sounds good.  I will start working on this today.

Thanks,
Om

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

ame branch with Moonshine and everything looks
>>>ok.
>>> >
>>> >I have also discovered that in the following locations for all modules
>>> >"frameworks\js\projects\BasicJS\target\" we have swc - probably it
>>>should
>>> >be excluded in the distribution package build for ant.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks, Piotr
>>> >
>>> >2017-12-03 12:53 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> In that place I think we should have Wiki page called: "How to
>>>download
>>> >> IDE ready Royale framework" - or something similar. It should
>>>describe
>>> >>what
>>> >> kind of package do we have and what people need to do in order to
>>>have
>>> >>SWF
>>> >> output.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think we should have in the title word "binary package" - It
>>> >> wasn't mean to me anything when I come up to Apache Flex project. I
>>> >>believe
>>> >> there could be more people like me.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks, Piotr
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2017-12-03 8:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I'm going to try to reply to everyone else in this one post...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Today, for folks just wanting to write an app with Royale, the
>>>nightly
>>> >>>for
>>> >>> "JSOnly" has everything you need to create JS output, but not SWF
>>> >>>output.
>>> >>> The nightly for the "FlexJS" package does not (and can never)
>>>bundle
>>> >>>the
>>> >>> Adobe playerglobal and airglobal needed to generate SWF output.
>>>The
>>> >>> "FlexJS" nightly contains an Ant script to copy in the Adobe bits
>>>after
>>> >>> you download them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And now, I am proposing to change this packaging so that the source
>>>zip
>>> >>> will contain 3 folders representing the 3 repos (royals-compiler,
>>> >>> royals-typedefs, royale-asjs) and without more fiddling, the JSOnly
>>> >>>binary
>>> >>> artifact will contain what is currently in the "JSOnly" nightly but
>>>in
>>> >>>a
>>> >>> royale-asjs folder and be otherwise ready to go for Flash Builder
>>>and
>>> >>> other IDEs, and the "FlexJS" binary artifact will again require
>>> >>>running an
>>> >>> Ant script to position the Adobe bits.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> For these IDE users, SWF functionality is essentially something you
>>> >>>choose
>>> >>> early when deciding what package to download.  I'm not sure how,
>>>under
>>> >>> Apache rules, to create a binary artifact that is an add-in of the
>>> >>> SWF-only bits.  Binary artifacts are supposed to be the results of
>>>a
>>> >>> compilation of a source package.  I suppose we could create some
>>>sort
>>> >>>of
>>> >>> script that overlays the SWF-only bits over a JSOnly binary.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Meanwhile, to answer Carlos's question, I think for Maven users you
>>> >>>choose
>>> >>> to get SWF output merely by adding the Adobe airglobal/playerglobal
>>> >>> dependencies to your POM.  These dependencies are in by default for
>>>the
>>> >>> examples.  Although it occurs to me that MDLExample shouldn't have
>>> >>>them,
>>> >>> so maybe I'll double-check that when I have time tomorrow.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I will have limited time to work on this until tomorrow night.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> HTH,
>>> >>> -Alex
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 12/2/17, 1:14 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>> >>>Muppirala"
>>> >>> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >On Dec 2, 2017 11:20 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
>>><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> >wrote:
>>> >>> >

Re: Hackathon

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Dec 11, 2017 7:32 AM, "Peter Ent"  wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the invite, but I do not think it will be possible for me to
join you.

Regards,
Peter

On 12/9/17, 1:30 PM, "Harbs"  wrote:

>The only flights I can take on Thursday are pretty early in the day. That
>would only give us the morning, and I don¹t see that being very
>productive. Missing those flights would mean I couldn¹t leave until
>Sunday, and my wife would not be happy about thatŠ ;-)
>
>I might be able to come to Seattle for the 11th and 12th. If there¹s
>others who can join, that would probably add weight to deciding to come.
>
>Who else could make it? I know Josh lives in Seattle. I¹m not sure if he
>has time or interest in joining. Any chance of Om coming to Seattle?
>Peter? Anyone else?


I'm having some vacation lined up next couple of weeks.  That means that
flying out to Seattle on weekdays in Jan is not possible for me.

Thanks,
Om

>
>Harbs
>
>> On Dec 8, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Harbs,
>>
>> Unfortunately, the 18th is the only window of time I currently have
>>open,
>> and after a red-eye flight, not sure I productive I'll be. What time do
>> flights leave to return you home?  Maybe there is an overnight flight
>>you
>> can take as well and we can get a full day in on the 18th.
>>
>> Also, where would we meet?  Adobe has a (mostly) sales office in NYC.
>>Not
>> sure if we can get a room there or not.
>>
>> If you come out to Seattle, I can easily get rooms for us to work in,
>>and
>> there is a larger window on the 11th and 12th that is available.
>>
>> If you go out to San Francisco/San Jose, I lose the window on the 11th
>>as
>> I have to be in Seattle on the evening of the 11th.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 12/8/17, 2:26 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>>
>>> I don¹t have hard plans yet, but I was thinking of going back home on
>>>the
>>> 18th.
>>>
>>> If the only way of getting together would be to fly to the west coast,
>>> that¹s not out of the question, but it does conflict with my main
>>>reason
>>> for flying to NY. I don¹t want to discuss my personal matters on a
>>>public
>>> list. If we get an idea of who is interested, we can try and see if
>>> interests and timing can jive off list where I can properly express my
>>> limitations.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harbs
>>>
 On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:51 AM, Alex Harui 
 wrote:

 What day are you flying back?  I might be able to get there Thur AM
(on
 the 18th) and leave Fri AM.

 On 12/7/17, 3:00 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

> It looks like I¹m going to be in New York the second and third weeks
>of
> January.
>
> I¹d very much be interested in getting together with whoever could
>make
> it for a couple of days of hacking to knock off a bunch of items on
>our
> ³to do² list. It would also be great if any ³lurkers² might join to
>get
> more involved in the framework.
>
> Anyone else interested? What are the chances of arranging something?
>
> Harbs

>>>
>>
>

Re: Repos and Releases

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

With this setup, can we have the binary release package all the
dependencies in one zip file?

Thanks,
Om

On Dec 2, 2017 8:25 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

> I don’t have much to add. For me, the simpler, the better. The decisions
> should be to get the first release out as quickly as possible and make our
> release process as easy as it can be so we can release often.
>
> > On Dec 2, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Piotr Zarzycki 
> wrote:
> >
> >  I would also see in the develop Harbs
> > changes with namespaces before release, after your merge.
>
> I’ll try to finish that up tomorrow.
>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Olaf

I will try to get your code working locally first.  Then I will push it to
Erik's vm.

We dont need to figure out the db right away.  I'm sure mongodb or dynamodb
should work.  We can figure that out when we come to that.

Thanks,
Om

On Nov 28, 2017 5:27 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

> Installing npm on linux is pretty straightforward.
>
> SSH and a few commands should do it…[1]
>
> I think DynamoDB is the easiest way to use NoSQL on AWS.[2] The Free tier
> will probably be enough for the foreseeable future.[3]
>
> Harbs
>
> [1]http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/install-node-js-npm-linux <
> http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/install-node-js-npm-linux>
> [2]https://aws.amazon.com/dynamodb/ 
> [3]https://aws.amazon.com/dynamodb/pricing/  dynamodb/pricing/>
> > On Nov 28, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Erik de Bruin  wrote:
> >
> > Olaf,
> >
> >> The instance has a basic PHP stack on it
> >> Although I'm doing PHP since PHP3 I would prefer to go with NodeJS and a
> >> NoSQL DB here.
> >> I am still learning NodeJS but it seems to me it is straightforward and
> we
> >> also could implement some real time stuff maybe a bit easier. (I think
> in a
> >> more matured try-it-now version some day it would be cool to return the
> >> compiler log in real time to the app instead of just showing a spinner)
> >>
> >> Is it a big task with AWS to create a NodeJS instance and to install
> >> additional npm's?
> >>
> >
> > I put that PHP stack on there, I can take it off easily enough. Anyone I
> > give SSH access to can do it.
> >
> > I do not know enough to create a NodeJS stack, nor am I familiar with
> NoSQL
> > databases. But I'm sure someone else is, and I can provide them access to
> > set it up.
> >
> > If we're not going to use the MySQL database, please let me know
> a.s.a.p.,
> > as that is incurring additional costs on my AWS account.
> >
> > Om, how much of Olaf's requests can you deliver, if I give you the access
> > needed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ix Multimedia Software
> >
> > Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > 3521 VB Utrecht
> >
> > T. 06-51952295
> > I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Erik de Bruin  wrote:

> Olaf,
>
> (We need a NodeJS installation with access to the file system).
> >
>
> How about I give you SSH access to a clean instance with Amazon Linux base
> install? Will you be able to take it from there, or would you need me to
> help with installing the server stack? Do you need a database?
>

Yes, I can take care of all that.  I will install whatever is needed to
make this work.


>
> In any case, I'll create the VPC etc. tomorrow, up to the server instance.
> I'll point a subdomain of the royalesdk.org domain to it, just because I
> can ;-)
>

Please don't.  We don't want a trademarks discussion at this point :-)


>
> EdB
>



Regards,
Om


>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295 <06%2051952295>
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

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

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin  wrote:

> > I believe we committers have some Azure credits with which we can spin up
> > some VMs that can host this.  The last option is for some of us to pay
> and
> > host it somewhere.
> >
>
> I've already offered to host any services the Royale project needs on a
> dedicated AWS VPC, as a donation. I can't donate mega-instances, but I'm
> sure that for now a small or even nano instance will serve us fine until we
> reach world domination ;-)
>

I'll take you up on that :-)
Olaf, if you don't mind, can I start the deployment of the `Try-it-now` app
on Erik's AWS instance?
This way folks can 'try it now' for real and give you feedback.

Thanks,
Om


>
> EdB
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

Re: [website] Getting started page

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Nov 22, 2017 7:02 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi,

all you're completely right, I was a bit blind in this content and maybe we
could move that content to other website page and create new one with the
ideas you suggest here.

So for the content could be more of a hello world with steroids.

The first instructions to use Royale should be from NPM since I think is
the most quick and easy way to get Royale, right? The problem here's that
Om still need to create the NPM package. Do we know in which state are this
part?


I started working on the npm publishing scripts.  I hit a blocker because
we need to repackage Flex Falcon.  Please see the thread related to npm
publishing.

I agree that npm would the fastest way to get a working Royale app.

Thanks,
Om


Then we should put some quick example. Someone could provide what example
could be? It should be short, easy but powerful. I think it should involve
some MXML and AS3 in combination.

I could continue with HOME and FEATURES and wail for some of you that
provide with such example. What do you think?

Thanks!

Carlos







2017-11-22 9:58 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :

> From an app developer perspective, I also expect just instructions how to
> get
> started with the framework with minimal effort to be able to build my
first
> app.
>
> If I am interested in something new and don't be able to get in touch with
> it in a couple of minutes I probably would move on.
>
> So I also agree that the "Getting started" page should provide the easiest
> way to download the framework and work with it to be able to build the
> first
> app.
> I think it would be great to provide a bit more than a "Hello world" app
as
> an example.
> A simple one file app, but a smarter than "Hello world".
> Something that excites new users and encourages them to explore Royale
> more.
>
> I remember as I moved from HTML to Flex 10 years ago or so I was very
> excited how easy it was to build apps just with a bit of MXML and AS3. I
> think we need such a "WoW effect" with Royale.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



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

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

; >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I prefer :
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * only one vote thread
> >> >>>>>> * compiler bundled (no release separately) - if people demand
> >>it, we
> >> >>>>> always
> >> >>>>>> can do that
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> about maven, I remember there's 3 separate builds due to how
> >>maven
> >> >>>>>>make
> >> >>>>>> things, I'd like someone with maven skills could finaly join the
> >> >>>>>>three
> >> >>>>> into
> >> >>>>>> one, that was something Chris was planning to do. The final step
> >> >>>>>>would
> >> >>> be
> >> >>>>>> making only one "mvn clean install" and have compiler, typedefs
> >>and
> >> >>> asjs
> >> >>>>>> compiled and ready
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> thanks
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> 2017-11-15 9:09 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hi Piotr,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> That's fine, we'll see what others think, but we are also
> >> >>>>>>>discussing
> >> >>>>>>> whether the compiler is a separate release and vote thread or is
> >> >>> bundled
> >> >>>>>>> with the framework.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> -Alex
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On 11/15/17, 12:03 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"
> >><piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Yep we didn't decide it yet how should be package release. In
> >>my
> >> >>>>> opinion
> >> >>>>>>>> this should look like that:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> 1) Package called royale-flexjs -0.9 Where it compiles to SWF
> >>and
> >> >>>>>>>>JS
> >> >>>>>>>> 2) Package called royale-0.9 where it compiles to JS only.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I like the idea of voting once where whole framework is in
> >>place,
> >> >>>>>>>>in
> >> >>>>> case
> >> >>>>>>>> of Maven during release process three repositories will land as
> >> >>> staging
> >> >>>>>>>> artifacts and we can vote.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >> >>>>>>>> Piotr
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> 2017-11-15 8:09 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui
> >><aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Royale will be using artifacts from royale-compiler, not
> >> >>> flex-falcon.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure we've decided on how to package our releases.
> >>The
> >> >>>>>>>>>Ant
> >> >>>>>>>>> scripts are currently set up for two artifacts (compiler and
> >> >>>>> framework),
> >> >>>>>>>>> Maven is set up for 1 or 3, depending how you count.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we'll have to adjust scripts anyway to smooth
> >>out
> >> >>> how
> >> >>>>>>>>> Maven and Ant work together to create all of the artifacts so
> >> >>>>>>>>>making
> >> >>>>>>>>> other
> >> 

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Royale will be using artifacts from royale-compiler, not flex-falcon.
>
> I'm not sure we've decided on how to package our releases.  The Ant
> scripts are currently set up for two artifacts (compiler and framework),
> Maven is set up for 1 or 3, depending how you count.
>
> I'm pretty sure we'll have to adjust scripts anyway to smooth out how
> Maven and Ant work together to create all of the artifacts so making other
> adjustments for npm is an option too.  Maybe the first question is:  how
> many vote threads do we want?  I believe eventually we rate of change in
> royale-compiler will slow compared to royale-asjs and changes to
> royale-asjs won't depend on changes in royale-compiler, but we could
> change our packaging and number of vote threads later.
>

Do we really need to release royale-compiler separately?  What if we simply
built and packaged it as a dependency along with royale-asjs release?
If and when we want to release royale-compiler, we could do that as its own
release.  This way, we don't need to have complicated chained releases.

Thanks,
Om


>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> On 11/14/17, 10:44 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm in the middle of updating the npm scripts.  Are we planning to
> >continue
> >to download flex-falcon from the current release?  Or are we planning on
> >pushing out a new release of falcon/royale-compiler?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I was going to copy it someday so go ahead and do it now if you
> >>have
> >> time.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 11/13/17, 12:50 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sounds good.
> >> >
> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 10:41 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >> >><bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, I just realized that we don't have a royale-utilities git repo.
> >> I
> >> >>am
> >> >> tempted to simply put the npm related code into royale-asjs/npm
> >> >>directory
> >> >> and add it as an exclude in the build.xml.  Any objections?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Om
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> If you call it 0.10.0, I think it’s pretty clear.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon <
> >> >>> ngra...@idylog.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In developer's eyes, "0.10" is "lower" than "0.9".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> You'd better number it as "0.91".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Nicolas Granon
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> -Message d'origine-
> >> >>>>> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> >> >>>>> Envoyé : dimanche 12 novembre 2017 10:15
> >> >>>>> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> >> >>>>> Objet : Re: Publishing royale to npm
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We’ve fixed a lot of things since 0.8.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 0.9 does not need to jump to 1.0. We can have 0.10 (and 0.11…)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I’d really like to streamline the release process so it’s painless
> >> >>>>> enough to release every couple/few weeks.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Harbs
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >> >>>>>><carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> about version number, I'll feel more happy with 0.8 than 0.9 My
> >> >>>>>>point
> >> >>>>>> is that we are getting a first release of Royale

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I'm in the middle of updating the npm scripts.  Are we planning to continue
to download flex-falcon from the current release?  Or are we planning on
pushing out a new release of falcon/royale-compiler?

Thanks,
Om

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Yes, I was going to copy it someday so go ahead and do it now if you have
> time.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 11/13/17, 12:50 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sounds good.
> >
> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 10:41 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >><bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> BTW, I just realized that we don't have a royale-utilities git repo.  I
> >>am
> >> tempted to simply put the npm related code into royale-asjs/npm
> >>directory
> >> and add it as an exclude in the build.xml.  Any objections?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you call it 0.10.0, I think it’s pretty clear.
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon <
> >>> ngra...@idylog.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In developer's eyes, "0.10" is "lower" than "0.9".
> >>>>
> >>>> You'd better number it as "0.91".
> >>>>
> >>>> Nicolas Granon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Message d'origine-
> >>>>> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> >>>>> Envoyé : dimanche 12 novembre 2017 10:15
> >>>>> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> >>>>> Objet : Re: Publishing royale to npm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We’ve fixed a lot of things since 0.8.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 0.9 does not need to jump to 1.0. We can have 0.10 (and 0.11…)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’d really like to streamline the release process so it’s painless
> >>>>> enough to release every couple/few weeks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>><carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> about version number, I'll feel more happy with 0.8 than 0.9 My
> >>>>>>point
> >>>>>> is that we are getting a first release of Royale and is the same
> >>>>>>that
> >>>>>> FlexJS 0.8 but with some new fixes and little things.
> >>>>>> As well I can see many things to do to reach 1.0, and would be great
> >>>>>> to have still an intermediate release 0.9
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2017-11-11 22:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>>>> <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Alex Harui
> >>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That might work.  One question:  we want the same bits that were
> >>>>>>> published
> >>>>>>>> as 0.9.0-rc1 to become the final bits where you would do:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> npm install -g apache-royale
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We aren't supposed to rebuild anything.  For Maven the same bits
> >>>>>>>> from staging get copied to Maven central, for Ant/IDE the same
> >>>>>>>>bits
> >>>>>>>> are moved (not copied) from dist/dev to dist/release.  So is it
> >>>>> true
> >>>>>>>> that the RM
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> publish the final bits by taking the same bits that were once
> >>>>>>>> published via
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as the final release?  What does the RM to do make t

Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Add ‘glue’ utility script to allow WASM to be loaded in HTML

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Harbs  wrote:

> Cool.
>
> I have not been following WASM very closely.
>
> As an aside:
> It would be really cool if we could make the compiler understand arrow
> functions for ActionScript.
>

Hmm, the point of the arrow function in ES6 is to not have a different
`this` object than the enclosing execution context.  I thought all
ActionScript functions already behave that way.

Unless we want the shortcut definition capabilities like
var square = x => x * x;

Thanks,
Om


>
> > On Nov 14, 2017, at 11:44 PM, Erik de Bruin  wrote:
> >
> > Yes. WebAssembly only a month or so ago made it into the bleeding edge
> > versions of Safari and Edge, completing it's 'penetration' of the major
> > browsers. ES6 was there "a long time ago", so basically if we're doing
> > WASM, we're good on whatever JS or Web API we want to use ;-)
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Harbs  wrote:
> >
> >> I’m curious about the context of this script.
> >>
> >> Will all environments where this is being run understand ES6 arrow
> >> functions?
> >>
> >>> On Nov 14, 2017, at 5:54 PM, erikdebr...@apache.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
> >>>
> >>> erikdebruin pushed a commit to branch develop
> >>> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-asjs.git
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/develop by this push:
> >>>new 3dc37ce  Add ‘glue’ utility script to allow WASM to be loaded in
> >> HTML
> >>> 3dc37ce is described below
> >>>
> >>> commit 3dc37ceb90c20be37639068061dba14b79e9461b
> >>> Author: Erik de Bruin 
> >>> AuthorDate: Tue Nov 14 16:54:13 2017 +0100
> >>>
> >>>   Add ‘glue’ utility script to allow WASM to be loaded in HTML
> >>>
> >>>   Signed-off-by: Erik de Bruin 
> >>> ---
> >>> .gitignore |  3 +++
> >>> wast/resources/glue.js | 11 +++
> >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
> >>> index a32c5ce..64c80a8 100644
> >>> --- a/.gitignore
> >>> +++ b/.gitignore
> >>> @@ -141,3 +141,6 @@ vf2js/frameworks/js/
> >>> #FlexJS generated files
> >>> frameworks/js/FlexJS/generated-sources
> >>> manualtests/FlexJSTest_SVG/bin
> >>> +
> >>> +#WAST generated files
> >>> +/wast/examples/HelloWorld/bin
> >>> diff --git a/wast/resources/glue.js b/wast/resources/glue.js
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000..fe66877
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/wast/resources/glue.js
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> >>> +function fetchAndInstantiate(url, importObject) {
> >>> +  return fetch(url).then(response =>
> >>> +response.arrayBuffer()
> >>> +  )
> >>> +  .then(bytes =>
> >>> +WebAssembly.instantiate(bytes, importObject)
> >>> +  )
> >>> +  .then(results =>
> >>> +results.instance
> >>> +  );
> >>> +}
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
> >>> ['"comm...@royale.apache.org" '].
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ix Multimedia Software
> >
> > Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > 3521 VB Utrecht
> >
> > T. 06-51952295
> > I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
>

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

BTW, I just realized that we don't have a royale-utilities git repo.  I am
tempted to simply put the npm related code into royale-asjs/npm directory
and add it as an exclude in the build.xml.  Any objections?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you call it 0.10.0, I think it’s pretty clear.
>
> > On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Idylog - Nicolas Granon <
> ngra...@idylog.com> wrote:
> >
> > In developer's eyes, "0.10" is "lower" than "0.9".
> >
> > You'd better number it as "0.91".
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> >
> >
> >> -Message d'origine-
> >> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> >> Envoyé : dimanche 12 novembre 2017 10:15
> >> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> >> Objet : Re: Publishing royale to npm
> >>
> >> We’ve fixed a lot of things since 0.8.
> >>
> >> 0.9 does not need to jump to 1.0. We can have 0.10 (and 0.11…)
> >>
> >> I’d really like to streamline the release process so it’s painless
> >> enough to release every couple/few weeks.
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> about version number, I'll feel more happy with 0.8 than 0.9 My point
> >>> is that we are getting a first release of Royale and is the same that
> >>> FlexJS 0.8 but with some new fixes and little things.
> >>> As well I can see many things to do to reach 1.0, and would be great
> >>> to have still an intermediate release 0.9
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2017-11-11 22:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
> >> <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Alex Harui
> >> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That might work.  One question:  we want the same bits that were
> >>>> published
> >>>>> as 0.9.0-rc1 to become the final bits where you would do:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> npm install -g apache-royale
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We aren't supposed to rebuild anything.  For Maven the same bits
> >>>>> from staging get copied to Maven central, for Ant/IDE the same bits
> >>>>> are moved (not copied) from dist/dev to dist/release.  So is it
> >> true
> >>>>> that the RM
> >>>> can
> >>>>> publish the final bits by taking the same bits that were once
> >>>>> published via
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as the final release?  What does the RM to do make that happen?
> >> Just:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> npm publish
> >>>>>
> >>>>> without any tag?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The rc1 would be in the /dev/ area of the dist site.  We will use a
> >>>> useMirror=false flag while attempting to download the specified sdk.
> >>>> This will bypass the mirror urls and directly load it from the dist
> >> site.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the nightlies, it would be similar, except we can use the direct
> >>>> url of the lastSuccessfulArtifact directory in Jenkins.
> >>>>
> >>>> When the release candidate artifacts get promoted to GA, they will
> >> be
> >>>> available via mirrors.  So, we will push a new release to npm with
> >>>> the new version number, which simply is new package.json file with
> >>>> the correct paths to the sdk artifacts.
> >>>>
> >>>> I plan to write a script called: publish-to-npm which can be invoked
> >>>> like
> >>>> this:
> >>>>
> >>>> ./publish-to-npm -- -nightly=true version=0.9.0 ./publish-to-npm --
> >>>> -rc=true version=0.9.0 ./publish-to-npm -- -ga=true version=0.9.0
> >>>>
> >>>> The script will take care of setting up the correct values in
> >>>> package.json and will publish it to npmjs.org.
> >>>>
> >>>> The values would be:
> >>>> Nightly:
> >>>> "roya

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

For staging builds, we could do :

Publish:
npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
Install:
npm install -g apache-royale@0.9.0-rc1

For nightly builds

Publish:
npm publish --tag nightly
Install:
npm install -g apache-royale@nightly

Thoughts?

BTW, if we want to integrate this as part of our release process, the
Release Manager will need to have node.js and npm installed as well.

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> What would be great is, when we push artifacts to Maven staging repos and
> dist/dev, we also push something to wherever we need to push it so npm
> works.  Then we say in the vote emails:
>
> Maven:  Use these staging 'coordinates' in your pom.xml
> Ant/IDE users:  Get artifacts from dist.a.o/dev/royale
> NPM users:  Run npm 
>
> But these may not be the final bits so we want to make sure folks know
> that and that we can push final bits later.  Then when the vote finally
> passes, the RM pushes the Maven artifacts to Maven Central, the Ant/IDE
> packages go to dist.a..o/release/royale and we do whatever is needed for
> npm.
>
> Similarly, for nightly builds, we tell Maven users to use -SNAPSHOT
> versions, we tell Ant/IDE users to get it from apacheflexbuild.  What can
> we tell npm users?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/9/17, 2:37 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Can you remind me what the issues are with npm and nightly builds?
> >>IOW, I
> >> would think we would want to automate the generation of the HPM release
> >>so
> >> it can go out with the regular Apache release artifacts and be tested as
> >> an RC by release voters.
> >>
> >>
> >I don't think there is any issue.  Those who want to test out the nightly
> >via npm, need to a few special steps before they run npm install.  Josh
> >added that functionality a while ago.
> >We are talking about the official release so we can push the package out
> >to
> >the npm registry.
> >
> >We could also publish alpha/beta releases to npm as well.
> >
> >
> >> We already need to synchronize the generation and deployment of Maven
> >> artifacts as well as the Ant/IDE artifacts.  Can we add NPM as well?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, we should be able to incorporate an npm publish command into our
> >release scripts.  Do you know at what point in the whole release process
> >we
> >will be able to update npm?
> >
> >If we dont change the installation steps, we would need the following
> >pieces in the package.json file:
> >
> >"org_apache_flex": {
> >"flexjs_path_binary": "flex/flexjs/0.8.0/binaries/",
> >"flexjs_file_name": "apache-flex-flexjs-0.8.0-bin.zip",
> >"falcon_path_binary": "flex/falcon/0.8.0/binaries/",
> >"falcon_file_name": "apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-bin.zip",
> >"flash_player_global_url": "
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.m
> >acromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F25%
> 2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cb85
> >038114e2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
> >C636458638974117812=Pf%2Fx4OLzd65wh8OEeXC8ALh3LE%
> 2BBvUQGD6Ksts2pl14%
> >3D=0",
> >"flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
> >"adobe_air_url":
> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fairdownlo
> >ad.adobe.com%2Fair%2Fwin%2Fdownload%2F25.0%2F=02%
> 7C01%7C%7Cb85038114e
> >2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636458
> >638974117812=dVNDap4qsl6i7zZ1uL%2FIiqKexCBpPPx86eqgDmslTPY%3D&
> reserv
> >ed=0",
> >"adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
> >"player_version": "25.0",
> >"swf_version": "36",
> >"swf_object_url":
> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fswfobject%2Fswfobject%2Farchive%2F=02%7C01%7C%
> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
> >aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
> >17812=gWVzkp0ByA8WM8SUI4pbDOKgs5omcrVHBnIJsy2pfQU%3D=0",
> >"swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
> >"flatui_url":
> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> Can you remind me what the issues are with npm and nightly builds?  IOW, I
> would think we would want to automate the generation of the HPM release so
> it can go out with the regular Apache release artifacts and be tested as
> an RC by release voters.
>
>
I don't think there is any issue.  Those who want to test out the nightly
via npm, need to a few special steps before they run npm install.  Josh
added that functionality a while ago.
We are talking about the official release so we can push the package out to
the npm registry.

We could also publish alpha/beta releases to npm as well.


> We already need to synchronize the generation and deployment of Maven
> artifacts as well as the Ant/IDE artifacts.  Can we add NPM as well?
>

Yes, we should be able to incorporate an npm publish command into our
release scripts.  Do you know at what point in the whole release process we
will be able to update npm?

If we dont change the installation steps, we would need the following
pieces in the package.json file:

"org_apache_flex": {
"flexjs_path_binary": "flex/flexjs/0.8.0/binaries/",
"flexjs_file_name": "apache-flex-flexjs-0.8.0-bin.zip",
"falcon_path_binary": "flex/falcon/0.8.0/binaries/",
"falcon_file_name": "apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-bin.zip",
"flash_player_global_url": "
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/25/;,
"flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
"adobe_air_url": "http://airdownload.adobe.com/air/win/download/25.0/;,
"adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
"player_version": "25.0",
"swf_version": "36",
"swf_object_url": "http://github.com/swfobject/swfobject/archive/;,
"swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
"flatui_url": "https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/archive/;,
"flatui_file_name": "2.2.2.zip"
}

Then, we up the version number and do a npm publish.  The release manager
would need to have the credentials for npmjs.org, but we could share that
with priv...@royale.apache.org

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 11/9/17, 1:28 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >OK. You’re probably right.
> >
> >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:34 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Did you reserve the name yet?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No I did not.  If we are going to be using apache-royale as the package
> >> name, we should be fine.
> >> Unless you are worried someone else might claim it?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >>>><carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Om,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM to
> >>>>>update
> >>>>> pages with real info.
> >>>>> could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in NPM?
> >>>>> I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll need more
> >>> time
> >>>>> to get Royale on NPM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the first
> >>> release
> >>>> of royale.  Does that work?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Om
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira
> >>>>><carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com
> >>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing
> >>>>>>people.
> >>> If
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>> came to this project for the first time, and try to search in npm,
> >>>>>>and
> >>>>> find
> >>>>>> "royale", althoug

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did you reserve the name yet?
>

No I did not.  If we are going to be using apache-royale as the package
name, we should be fine.
Unless you are worried someone else might claim it?


>
> > On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Om,
> >>
> >> I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM to update
> >> pages with real info.
> >> could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in NPM?
> >> I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming?
> >>
> >> Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll need more
> time
> >> to get Royale on NPM
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> > I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the first
> release
> > of royale.  Does that work?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com
> >:
> >>
> >>> I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing people.
> If
> >> I
> >>> came to this project for the first time, and try to search in npm, and
> >> find
> >>> "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll be ask me
> if
> >>> there's the right one.
> >>>
> >>> With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;)
> >>>
> >>> 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on npm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would vote for two packages:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and future
> >> targets
> >>>>> when/if we add them):
> >>>>> npm install apache-royale -g
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. To install js-only:
> >>>>> npm install apache-royale-js -g
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler only), we can
> >> add
> >>>>> them as additional packages later.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >>>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org.  The package
> >>>>> usually
> >>>>>> contains the code we want others to use.  It also contains a
> >>>>> "package.json"
> >>>>>> file which specify all its dependencies.  These dependencies (and
> >>>> their
> >>>>>> sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as part of "npm
> >>>>>> install".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are options to run custom scripts before and after the npm
> >>>> install.
> >>>>>> In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that simply
> >>>> downloads
> >>>>> our
> >>>>>> non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash player, air,
> >>>> etc.)
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> puts them in the correct places.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, our options are:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.  Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly and js+swf.
> >>>> We
> >>>>>> need to figure out the names of these packages, since they are
> >> unique
> >>>>>> identifiers on npmjs's registry.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then the command the users would run would look like:
> >>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >>>>>> npm install royale-js-and-swf -g
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2.  Publish on

Re: Publishing royale to npm

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM to update
> pages with real info.
> could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in NPM?
> I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming?
>
> Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll need more time
> to get Royale on NPM
>
> Thanks!
>

I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the first release
of royale.  Does that work?

Thanks,
Om


>
>
> 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>:
>
> > I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing people. If
> I
> > came to this project for the first time, and try to search in npm, and
> find
> > "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll be ask me if
> > there's the right one.
> >
> > With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;)
> >
> > 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on npm.
> >> >
> >> > I would vote for two packages:
> >> >
> >> > 1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and future
> targets
> >> > when/if we add them):
> >> > npm install apache-royale -g
> >> >
> >> > 2. To install js-only:
> >> > npm install apache-royale-js -g
> >> >
> >> > If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler only), we can
> add
> >> > them as additional packages later.
> >> >
> >> > Harbs
> >> >
> >> > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >> bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org.  The package
> >> > usually
> >> > > contains the code we want others to use.  It also contains a
> >> > "package.json"
> >> > > file which specify all its dependencies.  These dependencies (and
> >> their
> >> > > sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as part of "npm
> >> > > install".
> >> > >
> >> > > There are options to run custom scripts before and after the npm
> >> install.
> >> > > In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that simply
> >> downloads
> >> > our
> >> > > non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash player, air,
> >> etc.)
> >> > and
> >> > > puts them in the correct places.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, our options are:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1.  Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly and js+swf.
> >> We
> >> > > need to figure out the names of these packages, since they are
> unique
> >> > > identifiers on npmjs's registry.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then the command the users would run would look like:
> >> > > npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >> > > npm install royale-js-and-swf -g
> >> > >
> >> > > 2.  Publish only the jsonly package.
> >> > > Then the command the users would run would look like:
> >> > > npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >> > >
> >> > > 3.  Possibly, we can figure out a way to optionally download swf
> >> support.
> >> > > This way, by default the jsonly is downoaded and unzipped.  Then we
> >> could
> >> > > (possibly) look at the args or have the user run another command
> that
> >> > > downloads the swf support.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then the command the users would run would (possibly) look like:
> >> > > npm install royale -- -include-swf-support -g
> >> > >
> >> > > (or)
> >> > > npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >> > > and then
> >> > > ./update-royale-include-swf-support
> >> > >
> >> > > In all three cases, we can definitely run a script that alters xml
> >> > configs,
> >> > > etc. to suit our needs.
> >> > >
&g

Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fixed asconfigc files We now get full code intelligence in VS Code for the framework project code. This will work for even JS and SWF blocks.

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Nov 8, 2017 10:28 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

I was asking cause since you have added files for VSCode I could do the
same with Moonshine. Just wanted to understand.

It is not so uncommon having global file and open all modules. In Intellij
I couldn't imagine working differently - I have view for everything.
In Visual Studio projects .NET related for example you have main file for
the project *.sln - which describe whole structure. The difference between
Intellij is that when you open project with let's say 500 modules - Most of
them appear but only couple are open in real.

Your configs are very useful!
What about making example openable in VSCode and Moonshine ?


+1 to this request.

Thanks,
Om



Piotr

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017, 01:59 Harbs  wrote:

> Opening the entire royale-asjs folder will not give CI. I’m not sure it’s
> a good idea to add an asconfigc file at that level.
>
> I’ve committed an asconfigc file for the projects folder in case someone
> wants to open them all together.
>
> > On Nov 9, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Harbs  wrote:
> >
> > These asconfigc files treat each module as a separate project. (So you’d
> open Basic and Core separately (for example)
> >
> >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 2:14 AM, Piotr Zarzycki 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Harbs,
> >>
> >> So are you getting for each module CI ? You have basically opened whole
> >> framework and have CI everywhere ?
> >>
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> 2017-11-09 1:12 GMT+01:00 Harbs :
> >>
> >>> I’m really excited about this commit!
> >>>
> >>> The code intelligence is really good. :-)
> >>>
>  On Nov 9, 2017, at 2:09 AM, ha...@apache.org wrote:
> 
>  This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
> 
>  harbs pushed a commit to branch develop
>  in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-asjs.git
> 
> 
>  The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/develop by this
push:
>    new d47e115  Fixed asconfigc files We now get full code
intelligence
> >>> in VS Code for the framework project code. This will work for even JS
> and
> >>> SWF blocks.
>  d47e115 is described below
> 
>  commit d47e1155ef45344bb213a5fab4cae0c70f4d4074
>  Author: Harbs 
>  AuthorDate: Thu Nov 9 02:09:13 2017 +0200
> 
>   Fixed asconfigc files
>   We now get full code intelligence in VS Code for the framework
> >>> project code.
>   This will work for even JS and SWF blocks.
>  ---
>  frameworks/projects/Basic/asconfig.json| 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Binding/asconfig.json  | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Charts/asconfig.json   | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Collections/asconfig.json  | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Core/asconfig.json | 48
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Formatters/asconfig.json   | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/GoogleMaps/asconfig.json   | 50
> >>> ---
>  frameworks/projects/Graphics/asconfig.json | 48
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/HTML/asconfig.json | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/HTML5/asconfig.json| 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/JQuery/asconfig.json   | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Language/asconfig.json | 47
> >>> +++---
>  .../projects/MaterialDesignLite/asconfig.json  | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Mobile/asconfig.json   | 50
> >>> ---
>  frameworks/projects/Network/asconfig.json  | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Reflection/asconfig.json   | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/Storage/asconfig.json  | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/TLF/asconfig.json  | 58
> >>> --
>  frameworks/projects/Text/asconfig.json | 47
> >>> +++---
>  frameworks/projects/XML/asconfig.json  | 46
> >>> ++---
>  20 files changed, 606 insertions(+), 352 deletions(-)
> 
>  diff --git a/frameworks/projects/Basic/asconfig.json
> >>> b/frameworks/projects/Basic/asconfig.json
>  index 6dce0a0..cafd1e9 100644
>  --- a/frameworks/projects/Basic/asconfig.json
>  +++ b/frameworks/projects/Basic/asconfig.json
>  @@ -1,21 +1,34 @@
>  +/*
>  + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
more
>  + * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed
> with
>  + * this work for additional information regarding copyright
> ownership.
>  + * The ASF licenses this file to 

Re: Apache Royale static web site

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I suggest we just release what Carlos as a static website for now.
As time goes by, volunteers can build up a separate website using just
Royale.  At some point we can simply swap out the wp.com site with the new
Royale based website.

There is absolutely no requirement that the new site has to look like the
wp.com.  So, worrying about legal implications of maintaining the same look
and feel is premature.

Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good.

Thanks,
Om

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Thanks Yishay for your words
>
> 2017-10-28 19:09 GMT+02:00 Yishay Weiss :
>
> > Carlos, I agree that our resources are limited and this this might not be
> > the best way to spend them at this point. However, there are some points
> > that have not been mentioned in this discussion that make me think we
> > should try to move our site to Royale.
> >
> > One is that we claim to be different to other frameworks in that overhead
> > can be much smaller. A site that performs at the level of a classic
> static
> > site would be a significant proof of concept. If it doesn’t perform well
> > enough we’ll have some information on where we can improve in that
> regard.
> >
> > Related, we need to finally start eating our dog food. The more visible
> > our dog food, the more feedback we’ll get.
> >
> > Also, if new people really want to contribute to out site, I’d much
> rather
> > have them learn Royale than WP.
> >
>
> That's ok. I  only said that we are run out of resources and I don't see
> many people available to make this effort.
> In my case, my plan was to focus on design to bring something good to
> production, but didn't expect such problems with something we should put
> online, complete with real content and focus on other things.
> In my case, I would prefer to donate my tiny time in other things more
> needed. In concrete I prefer to donate in "theme" feature, styling express,
> and so on...
> But if someone wants to work on replicate the site with Royale our other
> html plain code, that's right.
>
>
> >
> > In other words, whether or not Royale ends up being a good tool for
> > classic web sites I see some reasons to try and achieve that for our own
> > site.
> >
> > Finally, suppose I wanted to replicate your site in Royale just for the
> > heck of it. Would that be ok from a legal stand-point? I couldn’t
> > understand that from the thread so far.
> >
>
> If we recreate the site with our own set of CSS, JS, that's right. Nobody
> could say us nothing since no commercial code is involved there.
> As well, If we put the actual static generated site online, without having
> to upload the code to any repo, that's alright as well, since is the normal
> use, and the rest of people using that theme is doing the same.
>
> Thanks for your considerations.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks, and great work so far.
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Apache Royale WebSite Preview

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Fantastic work, Carlos!

I checked it out on mobile and it looks pretty good there.

I do see a lot of references to Flex in the copy.  Please take a look.

Very inspiring 

Thanks,
Om

On Oct 22, 2017 3:18 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

> 2017-10-22 23:58 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
>
> > > I don't think so, since Codeoscopic buyed the license already
> >
> > Just to be clear: You bought the license for the Royale site? Or are you
> > saying that Royale is a “client” of Codeoscopic?
> >
>
> I buyed a license, is not a client :)
> so I can use the license to make this site. At least that is what I think
> about this, but let's what others have to say (Specialy Dave Fisher) on
> this regard.
>
> >
> > > I think there's an Jekyll exporter too but we need to check it and see
> > how it behaves.
> >
> > Sounds interesting!
> >
> > >> 3. What (if any) of the theme can be placed in a public repository to
> > make
> > >> the main site a non-WordPress one? I imagine we’d need to ask both the
> > >> publisher of the theme and Apache legal.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I think we should doesn't do that, since is not what we want, following
> > the
> > > example exposed before, is like if we use JIRA and for that reason want
> > to
> > > upload the JIRA code to some of our repos...don't see any reason to do
> > > that. The site is only for marketing purposes and a tool. The rest:
> > source
> > > code, binaries, wiki, issues, ... is what we produce and we deliver to
> > our
> > > users.
> >
> > What I mean is like this:
> >
> > Currently, the royale.apache.org  is built
> > automatically by committing code here: https://github.com/apache/
> > royale-website/tree/asf-site  > royale-website/tree/asf-site>
> >
> > Ideally, our main site should be editable by folks simply applying a pull
> > request on Github. I’m not clear whether the license for the theme would
> > allow us to do that by adapting the CSS and JS for a static site. The
> > WordPress theme would still be useful as a theme for parts of the site
> such
> > as a blog (and that would not be on a public repo), but I do think we
> want
> > consistent styling across everything.
> >
> > Makes sense?
> >
>
> Lots of sense, Harbs, but in this case we can change that. If we get and
> static site, that site will have code that is from a commercial product, so
> we can't upload nothing. That's what I think.
>
> In the other hand, we talked about to have a VM with Wordpress and there we
> can easily (and thanks to what WP offers in terms of ease), create post,
> modify web parts, change home, and so on, quickly, then export to static
> and put on royale.apache.org (that is what we really need and is required
> by our apache policies).
>
> We don't need to upload the code site to our repo. That, in my opinion is
> something that apache offers as a service for each project for people that
> wants to develop the entire site and doesn't have any commercial piece. But
> in our case, using a commercial WP theme can do, but repeat, I think is not
> what we do.
>
> the website, in Royale, Struts, or other projects is only a tool to connect
> users and developers with the code, docs, wiki, binaries, issues, mailing
> list and so on. So is not mandatory to anyone to develop something from
> scratch and upload to an apache repo.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:47 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-10-22 23:00 GMT+02:00 Harbs :
> > >
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >>
> > >> Very impressive!
> > >>
> > >> The direction is great! Awesome work!
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the Kindly words! :)
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I do have some questions which I think we need to address:
> > >>
> > >> It looks like you used the Movedo WordPress theme for this[1] which
> is a
> > >> commercial WordPress theme.
> > >>
> > >> This brings up some questions:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Presumably we’d need to buy a license to use it for the project.
> We’d
> > >> need to ask exactly what the right procedure is for doing so.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think so, since Codeoscopic buyed the license already, and as
> > David
> > > Fisher said we can use a commercial projects to market this project,
> > since
> > > is not part of the code of the project, just a tool, like if we use
> JIRA
> > or
> > > Itellij IDEA, or other think like that
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> 2. Does this lock us into WordPress? Would we be able to use these
> > design
> > >> elements for a “normal” site?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I want to try to use a plugin to export it and create an static site,
> > > sincerely I never try that before. I think there's an Jekyll exporter
> too
> > > but we need to check it and see how it behaves. In that case, we can
> > > operate in Wordpress and then export to our production site.
> > >
> > >
> > >> 3. 

Re: Flex2Royale

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

The biggest problem with FXG is that there are no editors that support it.

I kept using Illustrator CS5 for creating all my assets.  While I don't
have a problem with that or a need to upgrade to the latest version, it
will be hard to ask users to use that version for their FlexJS/Royale
skinning needs.  Adobe makes it very hard for people to find and download
those versions as well.

Going forward, CSS3 and SVG would be a very good alternative for us.  It is
widely supported and easy for our users to incorporate in their workflow.

Thanks,
Om

On Oct 16, 2017 9:05 AM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

> IIRC, Om was working on this to some degree.  One plan was to convert FXG
> to SVG.
>
> AIUI, a SkinnableContainer wouldn't be that hard.  Container already has
> an inner div to hold the children, so a different view could have the
> outer div display SVG behind the children.  I think there were more
> questions about SkinnableComponent because not every component is already
> implemented to support a skin by default, and SVG as a backgroundImage for
> some HTMLElements don't work well in all browsers.
>
> Flex Skinning was pretty expensive because it added a UIComponent child to
> every component.  Because we are PAYG, we don't want to force that on
> everyone, and as the MDL work showed, CSS Themes may be just as good at
> creating nice visual experiences and more standard/common.  But as Yishay
> said, in theory, a new set of views could add that extra DIV behind each
> component if that's what it takes to implement SVG "skins".  And we also
> know from MDL and Flat that we can also just re-factor components into
> enough pieces that they can have a different look.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
>
> On 10/16/17, 6:50 AM, "Peter Ent"  wrote:
>
> >We need to have a "skinning story" - something about alternate views, CSS,
> >that sort of thing. Adding to my list.
> >‹peter
> >
> >On 10/16/17, 2:29 AM, "yishayw"  wrote:
> >
> >>I like it.
> >>
> >>
> >>> There is no direct equivalent of SkinnableContainer in Royale (at this
> >>> time). A reasonable alternative is the Container.
> >>
> >>Maybe we could mention that Royale components typically have views which
> >>can
> >>be used to control appearance without changing behavior. To me, spark
> >>skins
> >>sort of played the same role.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Sent from:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
> >>y
> >>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C1f660ab8e3b74b1c
> >>a
> >>0b108d5145f4fd8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636437321952
> >>4
> >>70504=ueXDGjTEy4hq0kzF9w1P3utRy%2B805PEm54F7P9ZceZ8%3D=0
> >
>
>

VS code does for Royale swc projects

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Harbs, if I remember correct, you had mentioned that you have switched over
to VS code for all Royale related work.

Any chance you can share the project files somewhere?

Thanks,
Om

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Hmm, can you try doing a reply-all to the moderation email?  That should
fix this issue.

If that doesnt work, I can switch.

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> Om, this email is ending up in moderation.  Can you subscribe this email
> or switch to one that is subscribed?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 10/3/17, 4:46 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omup...@gmail.com 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%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 <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
> >>
> >> Get Outlook for
> >>Android<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.
> 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 <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >> 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" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> royale-docs is good.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >> >>>> <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I prefer royale-docs
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>> Om
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Per Infra:  "

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

This should make things simpler:
https://github.com/blog/2228-simpler-github-pages-publishing

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> Not sure. I  notified infra per their instructions.
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> 
> From: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> 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 <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> 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" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, put in a request for royale-docs.
> >>
> >> On 10/3/17, 1:07 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> 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 <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> royale-docs is good.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>>> <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I prefer royale-docs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Om
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 2, 2017 11:04 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>>> 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" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> 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/

Re: Github Pages (was Re: Github wikis)

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

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 complimentary.
> >>
> >>Harbs
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Peter Ent  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have been thinking that examples should be moved from royale-asjs and
> >>> put into its own royals-examples repo and then a wiki for that would
> >>>work
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe the tourjs should be a subdirectory in examples.
> >>>
> >>> ‹peter
> >>>
> >>> On 10/2/17, 2:14 PM, "Harbs"  wrote:
> >>>
>  INFRA just informed us that Github Wikis are now an option and they
> want
>  to know which repos we want wikis for.[1]
> 
>  royale-asjs and royale-compiler seem like no-brainers.
> 
>  What about royale-typedefs, royale-tourjs and royale-website? Does
> anyone
>  see a reason for a wiki in those?
> 
>  At what point do folks think we should set up an ³examples² repo? A
> wiki
>  would probably be appropriate on something like that.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Harbs
> 
> 
> [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fiss
> u
> es
> 
> .apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FINFRA-15138%
> 3FfocusedCommentId%3D16188401
> %
> 26
> 
> page%3Dcom.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%
> 3Acomment-tabpan
> e
> l%
> 
> 23comment-16188401=02%7C01%7C%7Cf13e83a4f7594535bec608d509c1
> 76d8%7
> C
> fa
> 
> 7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425648884686688&
> sdata=%2FSB
> h
> %2
>  BpyjIfrx%2FcwnFZAxqD%2FGdT3lvte6%2FWItPQDTIqs%3D=0
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>