Hi,
I like Alex's idea and I don't see any problem if we will have clear
information on our website what is for what is not for. I actually was
waiting for some package which is small and free from Flash Player - and
here we go!
I have to admit since I did start using FlexJS I haven't touch SWF p
>
> So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people outside
> our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
>
Agreed on the "simple." But it may be better to have a few products that do
what they advertise to do instead of one monolithic product that I then
need to
All of this is perfectly true.
Nicolas Granon
> -Message d'origine-
> De : carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] De la
> part de Carlos Rovira
> Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 20:15
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] proj
While we have only JS and SWF at this time I would want to have all and
only one possible installation, and just use JS, SWF or both vía arguments
in IDEs or command line.
In the future, with more outputs implemented, I think we could invest time
in separating and making all pluggable, since I thi
What files would:
npm install royale -g
put on your computer? The JS support only? Or also the SWF support? I
think we can have more than one NPM artifact.
Cordova seems to be doing fine with lots of plugins that are installed via
other NPM calls. Maybe we can think of SWF support as a plu
We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As well
people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what we do,
and we need to be simple and fast.
So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct one:
npm install royale -g
If people that lan
I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/t
