RE: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Yishay Weiss]

Thank you josh! Will upgrade CI server to 3.6.3.

From: Josh Tynjala
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:31 AM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF 
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now 
on?))

I was able to find binaries for Maven 3.6.0, and I compared the output
between 3.6.0 and 3.6.3 (which is, coincidentally, the version that I have
installed on my computer too). Maven 3.6.0 omits playerglobal.swc from
flex-compiler-oem.jar's META-INF/DEPENDENCES and Maven 3.6.3 includes it.
So it appears that you either need to switch to Maven 3.6.0 locally, or you
need to upgrade Maven on the CI server.

If it helps, here's where I downloaded Maven 3.6.0:

https://archive.apache.org/dist/maven/maven-3/3.6.0/binaries/

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> 
> >>   option-with-swf
> >>   
> >> 
> >> 
> >>   com.adobe.flash.framework
> >>   playerglobal
> >>   ${flash.version}
> >>   swc
> >>   runtime
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> >  >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> >  [exec] [INFO]
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] <
> 

Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Josh Tynjala]

I was able to find binaries for Maven 3.6.0, and I compared the output
between 3.6.0 and 3.6.3 (which is, coincidentally, the version that I have
installed on my computer too). Maven 3.6.0 omits playerglobal.swc from
flex-compiler-oem.jar's META-INF/DEPENDENCES and Maven 3.6.3 includes it.
So it appears that you either need to switch to Maven 3.6.0 locally, or you
need to upgrade Maven on the CI server.

If it helps, here's where I downloaded Maven 3.6.0:

https://archive.apache.org/dist/maven/maven-3/3.6.0/binaries/

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> 
> >>   option-with-swf
> >>   
> >> 
> >> 
> >>   com.adobe.flash.framework
> >>   playerglobal
> >>   ${flash.version}
> >>   swc
> >>   runtime
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> >  >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> >  [exec] [INFO]
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] <
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> >   [6/13]
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> >> > ]-
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> >  [exec] [INFO]
> 

Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Josh Tynjala]

The .jar file downloaded from the CI server doesn't include the
playerglobal.swc dependency, so it seems like it isn't using
option-with-swf.

For Release Step 11 on the CI server (when royale-asjs is built with Maven)
option-with-swf is explicitly included in the Maven options, even though it
looks to me like that's supposed to be automatic too.

I'd say it doesn't hurt to try.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:29 AM Alex Harui  wrote:

> royale-release profile should turn on option-with-swf.
>
> On 4/7/21, 10:24 AM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:
>
> I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for
> Release
> Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:
>
> -X
> --batch-mode
> -Proyale-release,apache-release
> release:prepare
> -Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
> -DpushChanges=false
> -Dusername=$GITUSERNAME
>
> Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.
>
> I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
> releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3Dreserved=0
> >
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss 
> wrote:
>
> > Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003
> -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> > succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this
> difference
> > in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different
> results,
> > which means we can’t release.
> >
> > The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is
> 3.6.3,
> > CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is
> 1.8.0_201).
> >
> > I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> > letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
> >
> > From: Josh Tynjala
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >
> > I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed
> in
> > flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> > option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> > option-with-swf on one of the computers.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect
> one
> > > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless
> maybe a
> > > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are
> both
> > > using option-with-swf?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3Dreserved=0
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> > >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>   option-with-swf
> > >>   
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >>   com.adobe.flash.framework
> > >>   playerglobal
> > >>   ${flash.version}
> > >>   swc
> > >>   runtime
> > >> 
> > >>   
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> From: Josh Tynjala
> > >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> > >> To: Apache Royale Development
> > >> Subject: Re: 

Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Alex Harui]

royale-release profile should turn on option-with-swf.

On 4/7/21, 10:24 AM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:

I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for Release
Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:

-X
--batch-mode
-Proyale-release,apache-release
release:prepare
-Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
-DpushChanges=false
-Dusername=$GITUSERNAME

Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.

I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 



On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different 
results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 
1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 

> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> 
> >>   option-with-swf
> >>   
> >> 
> >> 
> >>   com.adobe.flash.framework
> >>   playerglobal
> >>   ${flash.version}
> >>   swc
> >>   runtime
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe 
removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, 
since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 

Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Josh Tynjala]

I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for Release
Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:

-X
--batch-mode
-Proyale-release,apache-release
release:prepare
-Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
-DpushChanges=false
-Dusername=$GITUSERNAME

Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.

I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> 
> >>   option-with-swf
> >>   
> >> 
> >> 
> >>   com.adobe.flash.framework
> >>   playerglobal
> >>   ${flash.version}
> >>   swc
> >>   runtime
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> >  >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> >  [exec] [INFO]
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] <
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> >   [6/13]
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> >> > ]-
> >> >  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> >  [exec] [INFO]
> >> > 

META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))

[Yishay Weiss]

Running  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8 
succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference in 
DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results, which 
means we can’t release.

The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3, CI’s is 
3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).

I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and letting mvn 
download it but it’s the same result.

From: Josh Tynjala
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
option-with-swf on one of the computers.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> using option-with-swf?
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
>> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>>
>> 
>>   option-with-swf
>>   
>> 
>> 
>>   com.adobe.flash.framework
>>   playerglobal
>>   ${flash.version}
>>   swc
>>   runtime
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>
>> From: Josh Tynjala
>> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
>> To: Apache Royale Development
>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>>
>> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
>> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
>> he
>> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
>> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
>> > because of this line
>> >
>> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>> >
>> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>> >
>> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
>> > that?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Yishay Weiss
>> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
>> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Hi Josh,
>> >
>> > I’m running release ant script which has
>> >
>> > > > failonerror="true" >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >
>> > This results in
>> >
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
>> >
>> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
>> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> >  [exec] [INFO]
>> >  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
>> > >-
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>> >   [6/13]
>> >  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
>> > ]-
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> >  [exec] [INFO]
>> > ===
>> >  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
>> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
>> > .class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
option-with-swf on one of the computers.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> using option-with-swf?
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss 
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
>> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>>
>> 
>>   option-with-swf
>>   
>> 
>> 
>>   com.adobe.flash.framework
>>   playerglobal
>>   ${flash.version}
>>   swc
>>   runtime
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>
>> From: Josh Tynjala
>> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
>> To: Apache Royale Development
>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>>
>> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
>> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
>> he
>> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
>> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
>> > because of this line
>> >
>> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>> >
>> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>> >
>> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
>> > that?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Yishay Weiss
>> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
>> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Hi Josh,
>> >
>> > I’m running release ant script which has
>> >
>> > > > failonerror="true" >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >
>> > This results in
>> >
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
>> >
>> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
>> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> >  [exec] [INFO]
>> >  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
>> > >-
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>> >   [6/13]
>> >  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
>> > ]-
>> >  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> >  [exec] [INFO]
>> > ===
>> >  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
>> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
>> > .class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: See
>> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
>> > for an explanation.
>> >  [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
>> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>> >  [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>> >  [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
>> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
>> > playerglobal.swc?
>> >  [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
>> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
>> > containing your system which is interpr
>> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
>> >
>> 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
using option-with-swf?

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>
> 
>   option-with-swf
>   
> 
> 
>   com.adobe.flash.framework
>   playerglobal
>   ${flash.version}
>   swc
>   runtime
> 
>   
> 
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss 
> wrote:
>
> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> > because of this line
> >
> > +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >
> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >
> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> > that?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Yishay Weiss
> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >
> >  > failonerror="true" >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > This results in
> >
> >  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >  [exec] [INFO]
> >  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> > >-
> >  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >   [6/13]
> >  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> > ]-
> >  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >  [exec] [INFO]
> > ===
> >  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> > .class]
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >  [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> > for an explanation.
> >  [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> >  [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> >  [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> > playerglobal.swc?
> >  [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> > containing your system which is interpr
> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> > )
> >
> > Adding
> >
> > >
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> > />
> >
> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >
> > Can you advise?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Josh Tynjala
> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> > 

RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Yishay Weiss]

Not sure if this is related, but I found this in 
royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml


  option-with-swf
  


  com.adobe.flash.framework
  playerglobal
  ${flash.version}
  swc
  runtime

  


From: Josh Tynjala
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> because of this line
>
> +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>
> In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>
> which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Yishay Weiss
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
>  failonerror="true" >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> This results in
>
>  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>  [exec] [INFO]
>  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-
>  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>   [6/13]
>  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> ]-
>  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>  [exec] [INFO]
> ===
>  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>  [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>  [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
>  [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> because of this line
>
> +  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>
> In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>
> which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Yishay Weiss
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
>  failonerror="true" >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> This results in
>
>  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>  [exec] [INFO]
>  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-
>  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>   [6/13]
>  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> ]-
>  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>  [exec] [INFO]
> ===
>  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>  [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>  [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
>  [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> start.
>
> Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
> distribution without 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

Yes, it's specific to your system, so don't commit that extra . I
assume that you can
add 
-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
to the end of your terminal command when you run the Ant release script.
I've never done a release, so that's just a guess. As far as I know, this
part has not changed since the previous releases.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:36 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
>  failonerror="true" >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> This results in
>
>  [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>  [exec] [INFO]
>  [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-
>  [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>   [6/13]
>  [exec] [INFO] [ jar
> ]-
>  [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>  [exec] [INFO]
> ===
>  [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>  [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>  [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
>  [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>  [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>  [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
>  [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> start.
>
> Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
> distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>
> The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
> specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
> also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
> be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
> stuff, just build the 

RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Yishay Weiss]

One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the 
flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server because 
of this line

+  - playerglobal  com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0

In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES

which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around that?

Thanks.

From: Yishay Weiss
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

Hi Josh,

I’m running release ant script which has







This results in

 [exec] [INFO] Installing 
C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
 to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
 [exec] [INFO]
 [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler 
>-
 [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 
 [6/13]
 [exec] [INFO] [ jar 
]-
 [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: 
com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
 [exec] [INFO] ===
 [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
 [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an 
explanation.
 [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type 
[org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
 [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
 [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player 
playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player 
playerglobal.swc?
 [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, 
alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing 
your system which is interpr
eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: 
-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
 )

Adding

   

Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or if 
that’s specific to my system.

Can you advise?

Thanks.

From: Josh Tynjala
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.

Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.

I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.

Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.

The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.

I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.

Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal 

RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Yishay Weiss]

Hi Josh,

I’m running release ant script which has







This results in

 [exec] [INFO] Installing 
C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
 to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
 [exec] [INFO]
 [exec] [INFO] < org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler 
>-
 [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 
 [6/13]
 [exec] [INFO] [ jar 
]-
 [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: 
com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
 [exec] [INFO] ===
 [exec] [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
 [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
 [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an 
explanation.
 [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type 
[org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
 [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
 [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player 
playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player 
playerglobal.swc?
 [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, 
alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing 
your system which is interpr
eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: 
-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
 )

Adding

   

Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or if 
that’s specific to my system.

Can you advise?

Thanks.

From: Josh Tynjala
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.

Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.

I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.

Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.

The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.

I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.

Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
airglobal/playerglobal automatically.

Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
this month to finish that part. 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.

Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.

I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.

Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.

The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.

I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.

Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
airglobal/playerglobal automatically.

Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
need Flash Player to run tests, of course).

I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>
> What I still need to do:
>
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all
> compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> looking pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Awesome Josh!
Thanks for the update! :)

El vie, 26 feb 2021 a las 7:47, Christofer Dutz ()
escribió:

> Wow.. Great news.
>
> For the maven distribution part, I'll be happy to help.
>
> Chris
>
> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android
>
> 
> From: Harbs 
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:10:37 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development 
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Excellent work! Thanks for working on this!
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 26, 2021, at 1:55 AM, Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
> >
> > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> hadn't
> > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe
> SWC
> > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can
> now
> > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >
> > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> possible
> > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >
> > What I still need to do:
> >
> > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> should
> > not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> Royale
> > framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the docs,
> I
> > figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I plan to
> > drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, Starling,
> > and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all compile
> > and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be looking
> > pretty solid.
> > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> files
> >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
> The
> >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> Adobe
> >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> our
> >> version available as a backup.
> >>
> >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> the
> >> generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
> in an
> >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> airglobal.swc.
> >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> that.
> >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> the
> >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> >>> mavenizer.
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev
>  )
> >>> escribió:
> >>>
>  If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >>> playerglobal.swc
>  without running into license issues.
> 
>  Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and
> no
>  implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that
> we
>  create for JS libraries in Royale
> 
>  The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> playerglobal.swc
>  under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
>  about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
>  write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> >>> classes
>  and build a SWC from that.
> 
>  --
>  Josh Tynjala
>  Bowler Hat LLC 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Christofer Dutz]

Wow.. Great news.

For the maven distribution part, I'll be happy to help.

Chris

Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android


From: Harbs 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:10:37 AM
To: Apache Royale Development 
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

Excellent work! Thanks for working on this!

Harbs

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 1:55 AM, Josh Tynjala  wrote:
>
> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>
> What I still need to do:
>
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs should
> not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the Royale
> framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the docs, I
> figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I plan to
> drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, Starling,
> and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all compile
> and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be looking
> pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
>> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
>> version available as a backup.
>>
>> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build the
>> generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
>> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
>> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
>> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
>> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have the
>>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>>> mavenizer.
>>>
>>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (>>> )
>>> escribió:
>>>
 If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>>> playerglobal.swc
 without running into license issues.

 Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
 implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
 create for JS libraries in Royale

 The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
 under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
 about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
 write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>>> classes
 and build a SWC from that.

 --
 Josh Tynjala
 Bowler Hat LLC 


 On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:

> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
 it’s
> an issue we can debate solutions.
>
> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>
>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Harbs,
>>
>> the problem 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Harbs]

Excellent work! Thanks for working on this!

Harbs

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 1:55 AM, Josh Tynjala  wrote:
> 
> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> 
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> 
> What I still need to do:
> 
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs should
> not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the Royale
> framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the docs, I
> figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I plan to
> drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, Starling,
> and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all compile
> and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be looking
> pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
> 
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
> 
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
>> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
>> version available as a backup.
>> 
>> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build the
>> generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
>> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
>> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
>> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
>> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>> 
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Josh,
>>> 
>>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have the
>>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>>> mavenizer.
>>> 
>>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (>>> )
>>> escribió:
>>> 
 If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>>> playerglobal.swc
 without running into license issues.
 
 Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
 implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
 create for JS libraries in Royale
 
 The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
 under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
 about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
 write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>>> classes
 and build a SWC from that.
 
 --
 Josh Tynjala
 Bowler Hat LLC 
 
 
 On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
 
> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
 it’s
> an issue we can debate solutions.
> 
> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> 
>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Harbs,
>> 
>> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece
>>> of
>> software that is under a clear license use will be against the
 foundation
>> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
>>> me
> like
>> a solution to the real problem.
>> 
>> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
"royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.

I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.

What I still need to do:

- Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs should
not appear in playerglobal.swc.
- Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the Royale
framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the docs, I
figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I plan to
drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, Starling,
and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all compile
and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be looking
pretty solid.
- Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
Harman, if they'd prefer.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
> version available as a backup.
>
> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build the
> generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have the
>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>> mavenizer.
>>
>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (> >)
>> escribió:
>>
>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>> playerglobal.swc
>> > without running into license issues.
>> >
>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>> >
>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>> classes
>> > and build a SWC from that.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Josh Tynjala
>> > Bowler Hat LLC 
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
>> > it’s
>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>> > >
>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>> > >
>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>> > > >
>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece
>> of
>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>> > foundation
>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
>> me
>> > > like
>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>> > representatives
>> > > to
>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
>> > flex
>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
>> > know
>> > > > the solution to this 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

I haven't written Maven or Ant scripts to build playerglobal.swc yet. I've
been doing it manually with Royale's command line tools. However, yes, that
is something that will be necessary before this is production-ready.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:52 AM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> that's very cool! Thanks for sharing! :)
>
> So if I understand correctly, right now you can create the
> "playerglobal.swc" from maven or ant, but still need to be tested right? or
> maybe the playerglobal still needs to be filled with the right APIs?
>
> As soon as this is done, I think it would be a good idea to generate our
> own payerglobal.swc and get rid of the Adobe's version in order to give
> steps to be more independent and OS.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> El mié, 20 ene 2021 a las 23:16, Josh Tynjala ( >)
> escribió:
>
> > FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> > royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
> > from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
> > idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> > playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> Adobe
> > ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> our
> > version available as a backup.
> >
> > I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> the
> > generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> > However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in
> an
> > SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> airglobal.swc.
> > In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> that.
> > I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Josh,
> > >
> > > I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> > the
> > > better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> > > mavenizer.
> > >
> > > Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev
> > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> > > playerglobal.swc
> > > > without running into license issues.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and
> no
> > > > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that
> we
> > > > create for JS libraries in Royale
> > > >
> > > > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> playerglobal.swc
> > > > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> information
> > > > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> could
> > > > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> > > classes
> > > > and build a SWC from that.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not.
> If
> > > > it’s
> > > > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Harbs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
> piece
> > > of
> > > > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> > > > foundation
> > > > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem
> to
> > me
> > > > > like
> > > > > > a solution to the real problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> > > > representatives
> > > > > to
> > > > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for
> our
> > > > flex
> > > > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after
> we
> > > > know
> > > > > > the solution to this request
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
> > it,
> > > > but
> > > > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
> the
> > > > > content
> > > > > >> debugger.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> > > > > necessary.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Josh,

that's very cool! Thanks for sharing! :)

So if I understand correctly, right now you can create the
"playerglobal.swc" from maven or ant, but still need to be tested right? or
maybe the playerglobal still needs to be filled with the right APIs?

As soon as this is done, I think it would be a good idea to generate our
own payerglobal.swc and get rid of the Adobe's version in order to give
steps to be more independent and OS.

Thanks



El mié, 20 ene 2021 a las 23:16, Josh Tynjala ()
escribió:

> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
> version available as a backup.
>
> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build the
> generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> the
> > better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> > mavenizer.
> >
> > Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala ( >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> > playerglobal.swc
> > > without running into license issues.
> > >
> > > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
> > > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
> > > create for JS libraries in Royale
> > >
> > > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
> > > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
> > > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
> > > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> > classes
> > > and build a SWC from that.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
> > > it’s
> > > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> > > >
> > > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Harbs,
> > > > >
> > > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece
> > of
> > > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> > > foundation
> > > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
> me
> > > > like
> > > > > a solution to the real problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> > > representatives
> > > > to
> > > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
> > > flex
> > > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
> > > know
> > > > > the solution to this request
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
> it,
> > > but
> > > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> > > > content
> > > > >> debugger.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> > > > necessary.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
> any
> > > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> > agreement
> > > > you
> > > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
> did,
> > > > wenn
> > > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > *Apache Software Foundation*
> 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
version available as a backup.

I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build the
generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
I just wanted to share my current progress so far!

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have the
> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> mavenizer.
>
> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala ()
> escribió:
>
> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> playerglobal.swc
> > without running into license issues.
> >
> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >
> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> classes
> > and build a SWC from that.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
> >
> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
> > it’s
> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> > >
> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> > >
> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Harbs,
> > > >
> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece
> of
> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> > foundation
> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> > > like
> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> > > >
> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> > representatives
> > > to
> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
> > flex
> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
> > know
> > > > the solution to this request
> > > >
> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it,
> > but
> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> > > content
> > > >> debugger.
> > > >>
> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> > > necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> agreement
> > > you
> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> > > wenn
> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> *Apache Software Foundation*
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Josh,

I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have the
better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
mavenizer.

Could it be possible that you contribute it?

Thanks


El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala ()
escribió:

> If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom playerglobal.swc
> without running into license issues.
>
> Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
> implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
> create for JS libraries in Royale
>
> The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
> under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
> about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
> write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub classes
> and build a SWC from that.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:
>
> > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
> it’s
> > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >
> > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> foundation
> > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> > like
> > > a solution to the real problem.
> > >
> > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> representatives
> > to
> > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
> flex
> > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
> know
> > > the solution to this request
> > >
> > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it,
> but
> > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> > escribió:
> > >
> > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> > content
> > >> debugger.
> > >>
> > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> > necessary.
> > >>
> > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
> > you
> > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> > wenn
> > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Josh Tynjala]

If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom playerglobal.swc
without running into license issues.

Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
create for JS libraries in Royale

The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub classes
and build a SWC from that.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs  wrote:

> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If it’s
> an issue we can debate solutions.
>
> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> > software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
> > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> like
> > a solution to the real problem.
> >
> > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives
> to
> > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
> > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
> > the solution to this request
> >
> > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
> > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> escribió:
> >
> >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> content
> >> debugger.
> >>
> >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> necessary.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
> you
> >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> wenn
> >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Chris,

we're talking with Andrew Frost from Harman about it.
I think better add you to the thread so you can read what we talked about
and ensure the effort is in he right direction.
Thanks

El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 12:58, Christofer Dutz ()
escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> as this is only one artifact, I would probably use something completely
> different, which wouldn’t make the use of the mavenizer required at all for
> getting the playerglobal.
>
>
>
> We probably still need it for the AIR stuff, but I think that’s till
> available, isn
> t it?
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *Von:* Carlos Rovira 
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 4. Januar 2021 09:33
> *An:* Apache Royale Development ; Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
>
>
> Ok,
>
>
>
> @Christofer Dutz  can you update and release
> mavenizer to use
>
>
>
>
> https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc
>
>
>
> instead:
>
>
>
>
> https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/playerglobal/playerglobal20_0.swc
>
>
>
> I think that would solve the issue to build from a clean computer right?
>
>
>
> anyway i wonder if this url will be valid for long
>
>
>
>
>
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 23:44, Harbs () escribió:
>
> Why not just point to the current playerglobal?
>
> https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:30 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I think we are in real problems now.
> > If a new user comes and try to build he can't. Since he can download the
> > playerglobal.swc.
> > So for me that's a real problems today.
> >
> > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 20:07, Harbs ()
> escribió:
> >
> >> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
> it’s
> >> an issue we can debate solutions.
> >>
> >> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>
> >>> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> >>> software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> foundation
> >>> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> >> like
> >>> a solution to the real problem.
> >>>
> >>> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> representatives
> >> to
> >>> get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
> flex
> >>> and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
> know
> >>> the solution to this request
> >>>
> >>> Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it,
> but
> >>> need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> >> escribió:
> >>>
>  There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> >> content
>  debugger.
> 
>  I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> >> necessary.
> 
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> >>>
>  wrote:
> >
> > And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
>  other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
> >> you
>  agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> >> wenn
>  we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carlos Rovira
>
> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>
> *Apache Software Foundation*
>
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

AW: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi Carlos,

as this is only one artifact, I would probably use something completely 
different, which wouldn’t make the use of the mavenizer required at all for 
getting the playerglobal.

We probably still need it for the AIR stuff, but I think that’s till available, 
isn
t it?

Chris

Von: Carlos Rovira 
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Januar 2021 09:33
An: Apache Royale Development ; Christofer Dutz 

Betreff: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

Ok,

@Christofer Dutz can you update and release 
mavenizer to use

https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc

instead:

https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/playerglobal/playerglobal20_0.swc

I think that would solve the issue to build from a clean computer right?

anyway i wonder if this url will be valid for long


El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 23:44, Harbs 
(mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>) escribió:
Why not just point to the current playerglobal?
https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc


> On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:30 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi, I think we are in real problems now.
> If a new user comes and try to build he can't. Since he can download the
> playerglobal.swc.
> So for me that's a real problems today.
>
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 20:07, Harbs 
> (mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>) escribió:
>
>> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If it’s
>> an issue we can debate solutions.
>>
>> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
>>> mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>
>>> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
>>> software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
>>> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
>> like
>>> a solution to the real problem.
>>>
>>> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives
>> to
>>> get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
>>> and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
>>> the solution to this request
>>>
>>> Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
>>> need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs 
>>> (mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>)
>> escribió:
>>>
 There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
>> content
 debugger.

 I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
>> necessary.

> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz 
> mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
>>>
 wrote:
>
> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
 other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
>> you
 agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
>> wenn
 we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)


>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> *Apache Software Foundation*
> http://about.me/carlosrovira


--
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
Apache Software Foundation
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

ok thanks. For optional I was meaning to not make SWF play in normal builds
or releases if we can't ensure the foundation bits from Adobe.
It seems that for now the things are partially solved with the working URLs
provided by Harbs.
I think if Chris update mavenizer to use the playerglobal.swc new url, we
are ok for now.
Although this can change if the urls are temporal and Adobe plan to remove
soon. If that's the case, we will need to reopen this thread soon.

Let's see how it goes

Thanks

Carlos


El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 7:28, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> SWF support should already be optional.  I don't think Adobe bits are
> needed to generate SWCs.  The SWF in a SWC is written and read by compiler
> code.  The "js-only" packages don't require Adobe bits AFAIK.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
>
> On 1/3/21, 6:31 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>
> We can’t make swf optional until we can compile SWCs without SWF
> support.
>
> We don’t hyet know what will be available from Adobe’s website.
>
> If the necessary pieces will no longer be available from Adobe, we can
> put it on some other server.
>
> A longer-term strategy of making SWF optional is something we can
> consider, but we are a long way from there currently, so the discussion is
> premature IMO.
>
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
>
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for taking a look and report this. I think this is a big
> issue that
> > we all should discuss. So changing the topic to [Discuss].
> > A clear action is needed from the PMC here.
> >
> > For me the options are:
> >
> > 1.- Make SWF something optional in all the builds and releases, but
> not
> > required. So SWF target can become obsolete and not maintained or
> seen as
> > an issue for releasing. People can add manually the Flash Player in
> its
> > repo if they have it and continue building and ensure things continue
> > working, but the JS will be the main and unique requested target
> until we
> > have another like WASM in the future (if that happen on day). The
> main
> > problem will be that Apache Royale will lose eventually the double
> target
> > we have right now as something we know is working, at least in an
> > official way.
> >
> > 2.- As Chris said, see if there's some way to make Adobe provide a
> special
> > use case for the playerglobal.swc and let us use it. I think that not
> > should be a problem since that bits are not really useful or harmful
> > without the Flash Player to run things on browsers. But I figure the
> Adobe
> > response will be just a simple "NO". But we can try before falling
> back to
> > option 1. For this to happen I think someone like Alex Harui that is
> inside
> > Adobe can move the threads internally or just let to us and give
> some Adobe
> > contact to ask for this permission. I think the Apache Flex donation
> to
> > Apache seems to me broken without this, since the project is now
> broken,
> > and Apache Royale is in the same boat.
> >
> > More options? Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 11:21, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>)
> > escribió:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> in December I got my new Laptop and set it up. I forgot to get the
> Flash
> >> Debug player.
> >> Now I did manage to download the 32 bit version of the Content
> Debuger,
> >> but already some of the downloads on the download page:
> >> Adobe Flash Player - Debug Downloads<
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fsupport%2Fflashplayer%2Fdebug_downloads.htmldata=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb4399cb362ba4efcdf7c08d8aff441fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637452810972763721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=nklaio%2BraK5RI%2BmEEIhRVeiM%2Fve4XNQL8RXO5BPLYpE%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >> Result in 404s
> >>
> >> Will the 32bit content debugger stay available? If not we will be
> cutting
> >> off new contributors. Cause building with the "with-flash" profile
> will not
> >> be possible.
> >>
> >> So I cloned Royale on my new machine and gave it a spin.
> Unfortunately I
> >> will not be able to build all parts from now on as I no longer have
> access
> >> to the playerglobal.
> >>
> >> [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> [INFO] ===
> >> [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >> SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >> SLF4J: Found binding in
> >>
> 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Edward,

this official URL works :
https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html
But don't know if it's temporal or not.

El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 1:06, Edward Stangler ()
escribió:

>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20210102180106/https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html
>
>
>
> On 1/3/2021 9:00 AM, Harbs wrote:
> > There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> content debugger.
> >
> > I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if necessary.
> >
> >> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement you
> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did, wenn
> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> >
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Ok,

@Christofer Dutz  can you update and release
mavenizer to use

https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc

instead:

https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/playerglobal/playerglobal20_0.swc

I think that would solve the issue to build from a clean computer right?

anyway i wonder if this url will be valid for long


El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 23:44, Harbs () escribió:

> Why not just point to the current playerglobal?
>
> https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:30 AM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I think we are in real problems now.
> > If a new user comes and try to build he can't. Since he can download the
> > playerglobal.swc.
> > So for me that's a real problems today.
> >
> > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 20:07, Harbs ()
> escribió:
> >
> >> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
> it’s
> >> an issue we can debate solutions.
> >>
> >> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>
> >>> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> >>> software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> foundation
> >>> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> >> like
> >>> a solution to the real problem.
> >>>
> >>> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> representatives
> >> to
> >>> get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
> flex
> >>> and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
> know
> >>> the solution to this request
> >>>
> >>> Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it,
> but
> >>> need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> >> escribió:
> >>>
>  There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> >> content
>  debugger.
> 
>  I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> >> necessary.
> 
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> >>>
>  wrote:
> >
> > And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
>  other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
> >> you
>  agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> >> wenn
>  we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Alex Harui]

SWF support should already be optional.  I don't think Adobe bits are needed to 
generate SWCs.  The SWF in a SWC is written and read by compiler code.  The 
"js-only" packages don't require Adobe bits AFAIK.

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

On 1/3/21, 6:31 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

We can’t make swf optional until we can compile SWCs without SWF support.

We don’t hyet know what will be available from Adobe’s website.

If the necessary pieces will no longer be available from Adobe, we can put 
it on some other server.

A longer-term strategy of making SWF optional is something we can consider, 
but we are a long way from there currently, so the discussion is premature IMO.

My $0.02,
Harbs

> On Jan 3, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Carlos Rovira  
wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> thanks for taking a look and report this. I think this is a big issue that
> we all should discuss. So changing the topic to [Discuss].
> A clear action is needed from the PMC here.
> 
> For me the options are:
> 
> 1.- Make SWF something optional in all the builds and releases, but not
> required. So SWF target can become obsolete and not maintained or seen as
> an issue for releasing. People can add manually the Flash Player in its
> repo if they have it and continue building and ensure things continue
> working, but the JS will be the main and unique requested target until we
> have another like WASM in the future (if that happen on day). The main
> problem will be that Apache Royale will lose eventually the double target
> we have right now as something we know is working, at least in an
> official way.
> 
> 2.- As Chris said, see if there's some way to make Adobe provide a special
> use case for the playerglobal.swc and let us use it. I think that not
> should be a problem since that bits are not really useful or harmful
> without the Flash Player to run things on browsers. But I figure the Adobe
> response will be just a simple "NO". But we can try before falling back to
> option 1. For this to happen I think someone like Alex Harui that is 
inside
> Adobe can move the threads internally or just let to us and give some 
Adobe
> contact to ask for this permission. I think the Apache Flex donation to
> Apache seems to me broken without this, since the project is now broken,
> and Apache Royale is in the same boat.
> 
> More options? Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 11:21, Christofer Dutz 
()
> escribió:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> in December I got my new Laptop and set it up. I forgot to get the Flash
>> Debug player.
>> Now I did manage to download the 32 bit version of the Content Debuger,
>> but already some of the downloads on the download page:
>> Adobe Flash Player - Debug Downloads<
>> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fsupport%2Fflashplayer%2Fdebug_downloads.htmldata=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb4399cb362ba4efcdf7c08d8aff441fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637452810972763721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=nklaio%2BraK5RI%2BmEEIhRVeiM%2Fve4XNQL8RXO5BPLYpE%3Dreserved=0>
>> Result in 404s
>> 
>> Will the 32bit content debugger stay available? If not we will be cutting
>> off new contributors. Cause building with the "with-flash" profile will 
not
>> be possible.
>> 
>> So I cloned Royale on my new machine and gave it a spin. Unfortunately I
>> will not be able to build all parts from now on as I no longer have 
access
>> to the playerglobal.
>> 
>> [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> [INFO] ===
>> [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> 
[jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> 
[jar:file:/C:/Program%20Files/JetBrains/IntelliJ%20IDEA%202020.3/plugins/maven/lib/maven3/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: See 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Edward Stangler]

https://web.archive.org/web/20210102180106/https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html



On 1/3/2021 9:00 AM, Harbs wrote:
> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the content 
> debugger.
>
> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if necessary.
>
>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz  
>> wrote:
>>
>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any other 
>> server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement you agreed 
>> to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did, wenn we were 
>> working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Harbs]

Why not just point to the current playerglobal?
https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/32/playerglobal32_0.swc


> On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:30 AM, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
> 
> Hi, I think we are in real problems now.
> If a new user comes and try to build he can't. Since he can download the
> playerglobal.swc.
> So for me that's a real problems today.
> 
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 20:07, Harbs () escribió:
> 
>> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If it’s
>> an issue we can debate solutions.
>> 
>> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>> 
>>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>> 
>>> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
>>> software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
>>> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
>> like
>>> a solution to the real problem.
>>> 
>>> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives
>> to
>>> get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
>>> and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
>>> the solution to this request
>>> 
>>> Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
>>> need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
>> escribió:
>>> 
 There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
>> content
 debugger.
 
 I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
>> necessary.
 
> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz >> 
 wrote:
> 
> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
 other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
>> you
 agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
>> wenn
 we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
 
 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> *Apache Software Foundation*
> http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi, I think we are in real problems now.
If a new user comes and try to build he can't. Since he can download the
playerglobal.swc.
So for me that's a real problems today.

El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 20:07, Harbs () escribió:

> Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If it’s
> an issue we can debate solutions.
>
> I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> > software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
> > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me
> like
> > a solution to the real problem.
> >
> > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives
> to
> > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
> > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
> > the solution to this request
> >
> > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
> > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs ()
> escribió:
> >
> >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
> content
> >> debugger.
> >>
> >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> necessary.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement
> you
> >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did,
> wenn
> >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Harbs]

Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If it’s an 
issue we can debate solutions.

I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.

> On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira  wrote:
> 
> Hi Harbs,
> 
> the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
> software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
> rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me like
> a solution to the real problem.
> 
> I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives to
> get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
> and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
> the solution to this request
> 
> Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
> need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs () escribió:
> 
>> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the content
>> debugger.
>> 
>> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if necessary.
>> 
>>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
>> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement you
>> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did, wenn
>> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Rovira
> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> *Apache Software Foundation*
> http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Harbs,

the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a piece of
software that is under a clear license use will be against the foundation
rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to me like
a solution to the real problem.

I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe representatives to
get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our flex
and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we know
the solution to this request

Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do it, but
need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.

Thanks



El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs () escribió:

> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the content
> debugger.
>
> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if necessary.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz 
> wrote:
> >
> > And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any
> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement you
> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did, wenn
> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
*Apache Software Foundation*
http://about.me/carlosrovira

AW: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi Harbs,

but we can compile SWCs without SWF support, or are you referring to you/your 
company with "we"? Building all repos without the "option-with-swf" option does 
work.

And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to any other 
server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license agreement you agreed to 
when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it did, wenn we were working 
on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)

Chris

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Harbs  
Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Januar 2021 15:31
An: Apache Royale Development 
Betreff: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash 
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

We can’t make swf optional until we can compile SWCs without SWF support.

We don’t hyet know what will be available from Adobe’s website.

If the necessary pieces will no longer be available from Adobe, we can put it 
on some other server.

A longer-term strategy of making SWF optional is something we can consider, but 
we are a long way from there currently, so the discussion is premature IMO.

My $0.02,
Harbs

> On Jan 3, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Carlos Rovira  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> thanks for taking a look and report this. I think this is a big issue 
> that we all should discuss. So changing the topic to [Discuss].
> A clear action is needed from the PMC here.
> 
> For me the options are:
> 
> 1.- Make SWF something optional in all the builds and releases, but 
> not required. So SWF target can become obsolete and not maintained or 
> seen as an issue for releasing. People can add manually the Flash 
> Player in its repo if they have it and continue building and ensure 
> things continue working, but the JS will be the main and unique 
> requested target until we have another like WASM in the future (if 
> that happen on day). The main problem will be that Apache Royale will 
> lose eventually the double target we have right now as something we 
> know is working, at least in an official way.
> 
> 2.- As Chris said, see if there's some way to make Adobe provide a 
> special use case for the playerglobal.swc and let us use it. I think 
> that not should be a problem since that bits are not really useful or 
> harmful without the Flash Player to run things on browsers. But I 
> figure the Adobe response will be just a simple "NO". But we can try 
> before falling back to option 1. For this to happen I think someone 
> like Alex Harui that is inside Adobe can move the threads internally 
> or just let to us and give some Adobe contact to ask for this 
> permission. I think the Apache Flex donation to Apache seems to me 
> broken without this, since the project is now broken, and Apache Royale is in 
> the same boat.
> 
> More options? Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 11:21, Christofer Dutz 
> ()
> escribió:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> in December I got my new Laptop and set it up. I forgot to get the 
>> Flash Debug player.
>> Now I did manage to download the 32 bit version of the Content 
>> Debuger, but already some of the downloads on the download page:
>> Adobe Flash Player - Debug Downloads< 
>> https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html>
>> Result in 404s
>> 
>> Will the 32bit content debugger stay available? If not we will be 
>> cutting off new contributors. Cause building with the "with-flash" 
>> profile will not be possible.
>> 
>> So I cloned Royale on my new machine and gave it a spin. 
>> Unfortunately I will not be able to build all parts from now on as I 
>> no longer have access to the playerglobal.
>> 
>> [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> [INFO] ===
>> [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/co
>> nverter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
>> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.2
>> 1/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-class
>> ic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
>> .class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Program%20Files/JetBrains/IntelliJ%20IDEA%202020.3/plug
>> ins/maven/lib/maven3/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/im
>> pl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an 
>> explanation.
>> SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>> Your System-Id: ddcb1466
>> The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player 
>> playerglobal.swc. Do you want to 

Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Harbs]

We can’t make swf optional until we can compile SWCs without SWF support.

We don’t hyet know what will be available from Adobe’s website.

If the necessary pieces will no longer be available from Adobe, we can put it 
on some other server.

A longer-term strategy of making SWF optional is something we can consider, but 
we are a long way from there currently, so the discussion is premature IMO.

My $0.02,
Harbs

> On Jan 3, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Carlos Rovira  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> thanks for taking a look and report this. I think this is a big issue that
> we all should discuss. So changing the topic to [Discuss].
> A clear action is needed from the PMC here.
> 
> For me the options are:
> 
> 1.- Make SWF something optional in all the builds and releases, but not
> required. So SWF target can become obsolete and not maintained or seen as
> an issue for releasing. People can add manually the Flash Player in its
> repo if they have it and continue building and ensure things continue
> working, but the JS will be the main and unique requested target until we
> have another like WASM in the future (if that happen on day). The main
> problem will be that Apache Royale will lose eventually the double target
> we have right now as something we know is working, at least in an
> official way.
> 
> 2.- As Chris said, see if there's some way to make Adobe provide a special
> use case for the playerglobal.swc and let us use it. I think that not
> should be a problem since that bits are not really useful or harmful
> without the Flash Player to run things on browsers. But I figure the Adobe
> response will be just a simple "NO". But we can try before falling back to
> option 1. For this to happen I think someone like Alex Harui that is inside
> Adobe can move the threads internally or just let to us and give some Adobe
> contact to ask for this permission. I think the Apache Flex donation to
> Apache seems to me broken without this, since the project is now broken,
> and Apache Royale is in the same boat.
> 
> More options? Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 
> El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 11:21, Christofer Dutz ()
> escribió:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> in December I got my new Laptop and set it up. I forgot to get the Flash
>> Debug player.
>> Now I did manage to download the 32 bit version of the Content Debuger,
>> but already some of the downloads on the download page:
>> Adobe Flash Player - Debug Downloads<
>> https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html>
>> Result in 404s
>> 
>> Will the 32bit content debugger stay available? If not we will be cutting
>> off new contributors. Cause building with the "with-flash" profile will not
>> be possible.
>> 
>> So I cloned Royale on my new machine and gave it a spin. Unfortunately I
>> will not be able to build all parts from now on as I no longer have access
>> to the playerglobal.
>> 
>> [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> [INFO] ===
>> [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: Found binding in
>> [jar:file:/C:/Program%20Files/JetBrains/IntelliJ%20IDEA%202020.3/plugins/maven/lib/maven3/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an
>> explanation.
>> SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>> Your System-Id: ddcb1466
>> The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player
>> playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
>> playerglobal.swc?
>> (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, alternatively to
>> typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing your system
>> which is interpreted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
>> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ddcb1466
>> )
>> Do you accept (Yes/No) ? yes
>> [main] INFO
>> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
>> statusCode: 403
>> [main] INFO
>> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
>> reasonPhrase: Forbidden
>> [main] INFO
>> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
>> 

[Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Chris,

thanks for taking a look and report this. I think this is a big issue that
we all should discuss. So changing the topic to [Discuss].
A clear action is needed from the PMC here.

For me the options are:

1.- Make SWF something optional in all the builds and releases, but not
required. So SWF target can become obsolete and not maintained or seen as
an issue for releasing. People can add manually the Flash Player in its
repo if they have it and continue building and ensure things continue
working, but the JS will be the main and unique requested target until we
have another like WASM in the future (if that happen on day). The main
problem will be that Apache Royale will lose eventually the double target
we have right now as something we know is working, at least in an
official way.

2.- As Chris said, see if there's some way to make Adobe provide a special
use case for the playerglobal.swc and let us use it. I think that not
should be a problem since that bits are not really useful or harmful
without the Flash Player to run things on browsers. But I figure the Adobe
response will be just a simple "NO". But we can try before falling back to
option 1. For this to happen I think someone like Alex Harui that is inside
Adobe can move the threads internally or just let to us and give some Adobe
contact to ask for this permission. I think the Apache Flex donation to
Apache seems to me broken without this, since the project is now broken,
and Apache Royale is in the same boat.

More options? Thoughts?

Thanks

Carlos


El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 11:21, Christofer Dutz ()
escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> in December I got my new Laptop and set it up. I forgot to get the Flash
> Debug player.
> Now I did manage to download the 32 bit version of the Content Debuger,
> but already some of the downloads on the download page:
> Adobe Flash Player - Debug Downloads<
> https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/debug_downloads.html>
> Result in 404s
>
> Will the 32bit content debugger stay available? If not we will be cutting
> off new contributors. Cause building with the "with-flash" profile will not
> be possible.
>
> So I cloned Royale on my new machine and gave it a spin. Unfortunately I
> will not be able to build all parts from now on as I no longer have access
> to the playerglobal.
>
> [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> [INFO] ===
> [INFO]  - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/cdutz/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Program%20Files/JetBrains/IntelliJ%20IDEA%202020.3/plugins/maven/lib/maven3/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an
> explanation.
> SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> Your System-Id: ddcb1466
> The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
> (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, alternatively to
> typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing your system
> which is interpreted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ddcb1466
> )
> Do you accept (Yes/No) ? yes
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> statusCode: 403
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> reasonPhrase: Forbidden
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> ===
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> Downloading
> http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/playerglobal/playerglobal20_0.swc
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> Expected size: 0KB
>0% [> ]
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> [main] INFO
> org.apache.flex.utilities.converter.retrievers.download.DownloadRetriever -
> Finished downloading.
> [main]