RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Sorry? "Madremía!!! , as they say in my country" No sorry, just a thank you. I wish I could collaborate like you, I'm only half beta tester hahahahahaha. Thank you very much to you Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Greg Dove Enviado el: viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 0:02 Para: Apache Royale Development Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Sorry Hiedra, that problem was my fault, and thanks also to Edward from me for figuring it out. I had based the MXRoyaleBase part of my work on an old version of the ant build file because I actually started work on it last year and didn't come back to it until just recently. So I had the corresponding ant file in an earlier state, without more recent changes that were added to the one in MXRoyale. I had to work through many updates in the actionscript to get everything synced to the current code between MXRoyale and MXRoyaleBase, but didn't notice the change in the build files, which left me wondering why you were seeing issues. Thanks again, Edward! Greg On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:35 AM Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Solved Edward, I compiled perfectly with your changes. > Thank you very much. > Hiedra. > > -Mensaje original- > De: Edward Stangler Enviado el: jueves, 14 de > octubre de 2021 4:35 > Para: dev@royale.apache.org > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > Well, I meant output from the "ant" command that I previously > mentioned, but I think I see the issue. > > Your MXRoyaleBase.swc (compile-swf) is not happening at all. I think > it's because the MXRoyaleBase/build.xml doesn't have recent changes > from MXRoyale/build.xml. (My environment variables are probably > different from yours, so the build.xml changes make a difference in > your build but not > mine.) > > Try the changes that I just submitted as PR #1156. > > > On 10/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > > Hi Edward, > > Yes, that was the first thing I looked at but I can't identify any > problems. This is the exit: > > ... > > > > > > Hiedra. > > -Mensaje original- > De: Edward Stangler > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 13 de octubre de 2021 21:19 > Para: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > > Maria, > > > > If you don't have a MXRoyaleBase.swc file, there must be some errors > during the MXRoyaleBase part of the compile. What are those errors? > > (Or is that section of the compile missing?) > > > > > > > > On 10/13/2021 11:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > > > Hi Edward, > > > > > > I have the same error with your compile command. :( > > ... > > > [java] 0.56729972 > secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. > > > >
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Sorry Hiedra, that problem was my fault, and thanks also to Edward from me for figuring it out. I had based the MXRoyaleBase part of my work on an old version of the ant build file because I actually started work on it last year and didn't come back to it until just recently. So I had the corresponding ant file in an earlier state, without more recent changes that were added to the one in MXRoyale. I had to work through many updates in the actionscript to get everything synced to the current code between MXRoyale and MXRoyaleBase, but didn't notice the change in the build files, which left me wondering why you were seeing issues. Thanks again, Edward! Greg On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:35 AM Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Solved Edward, I compiled perfectly with your changes. > Thank you very much. > Hiedra. > > -Mensaje original- > De: Edward Stangler > Enviado el: jueves, 14 de octubre de 2021 4:35 > Para: dev@royale.apache.org > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > Well, I meant output from the "ant" command that I previously mentioned, > but I think I see the issue. > > Your MXRoyaleBase.swc (compile-swf) is not happening at all. I think it's > because the MXRoyaleBase/build.xml doesn't have recent changes from > MXRoyale/build.xml. (My environment variables are probably different from > yours, so the build.xml changes make a difference in your build but not > mine.) > > Try the changes that I just submitted as PR #1156. > > > On 10/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > > Hi Edward, > > Yes, that was the first thing I looked at but I can't identify any > problems. This is the exit: > > ... > > > > > > Hiedra. > > -Mensaje original- > De: Edward Stangler > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 13 de octubre de 2021 21:19 > Para: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > > Maria, > > > > If you don't have a MXRoyaleBase.swc file, there must be some errors > during the MXRoyaleBase part of the compile. What are those errors? > > (Or is that section of the compile missing?) > > > > > > > > On 10/13/2021 11:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > > > Hi Edward, > > > > > > I have the same error with your compile command. :( > > ... > > > [java] 0.56729972 > secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. > > > >
RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Solved Edward, I compiled perfectly with your changes. Thank you very much. Hiedra. -Mensaje original- De: Edward Stangler Enviado el: jueves, 14 de octubre de 2021 4:35 Para: dev@royale.apache.org Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Well, I meant output from the "ant" command that I previously mentioned, but I think I see the issue. Your MXRoyaleBase.swc (compile-swf) is not happening at all. I think it's because the MXRoyaleBase/build.xml doesn't have recent changes from MXRoyale/build.xml. (My environment variables are probably different from yours, so the build.xml changes make a difference in your build but not mine.) Try the changes that I just submitted as PR #1156. On 10/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: Hi Edward, Yes, that was the first thing I looked at but I can't identify any problems. This is the exit: ... Hiedra. -Mensaje original- De: Edward Stangler Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 13 de octubre de 2021 21:19 Para: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Maria, If you don't have a MXRoyaleBase.swc file, there must be some errors during the MXRoyaleBase part of the compile. What are those errors? (Or is that section of the compile missing?) On 10/13/2021 11:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Hi Edward, > > I have the same error with your compile command. :( ... > [java] 0.56729972 > secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'.
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Well, I meant output from the "ant" command that I previously mentioned, but I think I see the issue. Your MXRoyaleBase.swc (compile-swf) is not happening at all. I think it's because the MXRoyaleBase/build.xml doesn't have recent changes from MXRoyale/build.xml. (My environment variables are probably different from yours, so the build.xml changes make a difference in your build but not mine.) Try the changes that I just submitted as PR #1156. On 10/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: Hi Edward, Yes, that was the first thing I looked at but I can't identify any problems. This is the exit: ... Hiedra. -Mensaje original- De: Edward Stangler Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 13 de octubre de 2021 21:19 Para: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Maria, If you don't have a MXRoyaleBase.swc file, there must be some errors during the MXRoyaleBase part of the compile. What are those errors? (Or is that section of the compile missing?) On 10/13/2021 11:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Hi Edward, > > I have the same error with your compile command. :( ... > [java] 0.56729972 > secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'.
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Maria, If you don't have a MXRoyaleBase.swc file, there must be some errors during the MXRoyaleBase part of the compile. What are those errors? (Or is that section of the compile missing?) On 10/13/2021 11:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Hi Edward, > > I have the same error with your compile command. ☹ ... > [java] 0.56729972 > secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'.
RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Hi Edward, I have the same error with your compile command. ☹ compile: [echo] swc-date is 10/13/21 16:44 +0200 compile-swf: [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc [echo] ROYALE_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m [java] args: [java] +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 [java] +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale [java] -metadata.date=10/13/21 16:44 +0200 [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 [java] -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc [java] -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml [java] -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks/js-config.xml [java] -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml [java] 0.56729972 secondsD:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): col: 0 unable to open 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. [java] [java] D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml (line: 40) [java] [java] [java] [java] Press a key to continue . . . How can it be if my bat is the same as always? Compiled fine without problems until commit " c2f7c2855f70342612bf732e742253434fffe9b032 05/10/2021 18:43:17". I resubmit my SDK build bat: call ant super-clean call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P option-with-sass-compile SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true Later I will do another test, "compile Maven without sass" because maybe the problem is there. Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Edward Stangler mailto:estang...@bradmark.com>> Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de octubre de 2021 10:14 Para: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. ant -Dskip-tests=1 all works for me, and it generates MXRoyaleBase.swc. I've tried various tests and compiles, and so far it hasn't broke. On 10/13/2021 3:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > I keep getting errors when compiling, the MXRoyaleBase.swc file is not > generated, is this not happening to anyone else? > > Hiedra
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
ant -Dskip-tests=1 all works for me, and it generates MXRoyaleBase.swc. I've tried various tests and compiles, and so far it hasn't broke. On 10/13/2021 3:07 AM, Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > I keep getting errors when compiling, the MXRoyaleBase.swc file is not > generated, is this not happening to anyone else? > > Hiedra
RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
I keep getting errors when compiling, the MXRoyaleBase.swc file is not generated, is this not happening to anyone else? Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Maria Jose Esteve Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 4:41 Para: dev@royale.apache.org Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. :P My name is "María José", Hiedra is my nickname (I'm already a few years old...) but anyone will do. I tried without the -Drelease.target=true option and got the same error. It does seem strange... because my .bat is the same as always :) Tomorrow I'll do some more tests and I'll share the results (in Spain it's 4.38 am and I'm too sleepy to see the screen, :P) Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Greg Dove Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 4:00 Para: Apache Royale Development Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Hiedra (or is it Maria? I apologise, but I am still not sure which name, but I guess it is Hiedra), I was not able to reproduce the issue you described, when I followed the same build commands that you used. Everything worked for me... Also, the CI build is working with ant just fine, it seems, build is working after the changes and I can see the MXRoyaleBase.swc in the nightly build when I download it: http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/royale-asjs/ I'm not sure what is causing the problem for you, unless you had some local changes in the build scripts and conflicts that did not resolve well when you pulled the updates (probably not, I am just trying to guess how this could happen). Hopefully it will resolve next time you try. If anyone else sees the same issue, can you please let me know? Thanks, Greg On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Greg Dove wrote: > > Thanks I will look into it as soon as I can. I had tested it with my > daily build which is both ant and maven, so I will try to figure out > what the difference is (I don't use -Drelease.target=true for > instance) Greg > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:41 PM Maria Jose Esteve > wrote: > >> Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: >> … >> call ant super-clean >> call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P >> option-with-sass-compile SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 >> -Xms256m -Xmx2048m call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true >> -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true >> >> Hiedra >> >> De: Maria Jose Esteve Enviado el: domingo, 10 de >> octubre de 2021 1:37 >> Para: dev@royale.apache.org >> Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an >> error in the ant compilation. >> >> The general error: >> >> >> >> BUILD FAILED >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: >> condition satisfied >> >> >> >> in the compilation ant: >> >> >> >> Crux: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> clean: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> check-for-tests: >> >> >> >> clean-tests: >> >> >> >> check-compiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-transpiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-compiler: >> >> >> >> compile: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> compile-swf: >> >> [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc >> >> [echo] ROYALE_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js >> >> [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 >> -Xms256m -X
RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
:P My name is "María José", Hiedra is my nickname (I'm already a few years old...) but anyone will do. I tried without the -Drelease.target=true option and got the same error. It does seem strange... because my .bat is the same as always :) Tomorrow I'll do some more tests and I'll share the results (in Spain it's 4.38 am and I'm too sleepy to see the screen, :P) Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Greg Dove Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 4:00 Para: Apache Royale Development Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Hiedra (or is it Maria? I apologise, but I am still not sure which name, but I guess it is Hiedra), I was not able to reproduce the issue you described, when I followed the same build commands that you used. Everything worked for me... Also, the CI build is working with ant just fine, it seems, build is working after the changes and I can see the MXRoyaleBase.swc in the nightly build when I download it: http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/royale-asjs/ I'm not sure what is causing the problem for you, unless you had some local changes in the build scripts and conflicts that did not resolve well when you pulled the updates (probably not, I am just trying to guess how this could happen). Hopefully it will resolve next time you try. If anyone else sees the same issue, can you please let me know? Thanks, Greg On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Greg Dove wrote: > > Thanks I will look into it as soon as I can. I had tested it with my > daily build which is both ant and maven, so I will try to figure out > what the difference is (I don't use -Drelease.target=true for > instance) Greg > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:41 PM Maria Jose Esteve > wrote: > >> Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: >> … >> call ant super-clean >> call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P >> option-with-sass-compile SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 >> -Xms256m -Xmx2048m call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true >> -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true >> >> Hiedra >> >> De: Maria Jose Esteve Enviado el: domingo, 10 de >> octubre de 2021 1:37 >> Para: dev@royale.apache.org >> Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an >> error in the ant compilation. >> >> The general error: >> >> >> >> BUILD FAILED >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: >> condition satisfied >> >> >> >> in the compilation ant: >> >> >> >> Crux: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> clean: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> check-for-tests: >> >> >> >> clean-tests: >> >> >> >> check-compiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-transpiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-compiler: >> >> >> >> compile: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> compile-swf: >> >> [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc >> >> [echo] ROYALE_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js >> >> [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 >> -Xms256m -Xmx2048m >> >> [java] args: >> >> [java] >> +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/fra >> +meworks >> >> [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 >> >> [java] >> +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royal
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Hiedra (or is it Maria? I apologise, but I am still not sure which name, but I guess it is Hiedra), I was not able to reproduce the issue you described, when I followed the same build commands that you used. Everything worked for me... Also, the CI build is working with ant just fine, it seems, build is working after the changes and I can see the MXRoyaleBase.swc in the nightly build when I download it: http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/royale-asjs/ I'm not sure what is causing the problem for you, unless you had some local changes in the build scripts and conflicts that did not resolve well when you pulled the updates (probably not, I am just trying to guess how this could happen). Hopefully it will resolve next time you try. If anyone else sees the same issue, can you please let me know? Thanks, Greg On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Greg Dove wrote: > > Thanks I will look into it as soon as I can. I had tested it with my daily > build which is both ant and maven, so I will try to figure out what the > difference is (I don't use -Drelease.target=true for instance) > Greg > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:41 PM Maria Jose Esteve > wrote: > >> Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: >> … >> call ant super-clean >> call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P >> option-with-sass-compile >> SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m >> call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true >> >> Hiedra >> >> De: Maria Jose Esteve >> Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 1:37 >> Para: dev@royale.apache.org >> Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an error >> in the ant compilation. >> >> The general error: >> >> >> >> BUILD FAILED >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: The >> following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: >> The following error occurred while executing this line: >> >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: >> condition satisfied >> >> >> >> in the compilation ant: >> >> >> >> Crux: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> clean: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> check-for-tests: >> >> >> >> clean-tests: >> >> >> >> check-compiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-transpiler-home: >> >> >> >> check-compiler: >> >> >> >> compile: >> >> [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> >> >> compile-swf: >> >> [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc >> >> [echo] ROYALE_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: >> D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js >> >> [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m >> -Xmx2048m >> >> [java] args: >> >> [java] >> +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks >> >> [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 >> >> [java] >> +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork >> >> [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true >> >> [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale >> >> [java] -metadata.date=10/10/21 01:06 +0200 >> >> [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z >> >> [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 >> >> [java] >> -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc >> >> [java] >> -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\C
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Thanks I will look into it as soon as I can. I had tested it with my daily build which is both ant and maven, so I will try to figure out what the difference is (I don't use -Drelease.target=true for instance) Greg On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:41 PM Maria Jose Esteve wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: > … > call ant super-clean > call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P > option-with-sass-compile > SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m > call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true > > Hiedra > > De: Maria Jose Esteve > Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 1:37 > Para: dev@royale.apache.org > Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > Hi, > > @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an error in > the ant compilation. > > The general error: > > > > BUILD FAILED > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: The > following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: > condition satisfied > > > > in the compilation ant: > > > > Crux: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > clean: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > check-for-tests: > > > > clean-tests: > > > > check-compiler-home: > > > > check-transpiler-home: > > > > check-compiler: > > > > compile: > > [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > > > compile-swf: > > [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc > > [echo] ROYALE_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js > > [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m > -Xmx2048m > > [java] args: > > [java] > +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks > > [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 > > [java] > +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork > > [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true > > [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale > > [java] -metadata.date=10/10/21 01:06 +0200 > > [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z > > [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 > > [java] > -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc > > [java] > -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml > > [java] > -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks/js-config.xml > > [java] > -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml > > [java] 0.601410729 seconds > > [java] > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): > col: 0 unable to open > 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. > > [java] > D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml > (line: 40) > > [java] > > [java] > > [java] > > [java] > > > > I have verified that MXRoyaleBase.swc has not been generated. > > Attached is the compilation log. > > > > Hiedra > > > > -Mensaje original- > De: Greg Dove mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> > Enviado el: sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 22:19 > Para: Apache Royale Development dev@royale.apache.org>> > Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. > > > > OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. > > > > I pushed t
RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: … call ant super-clean call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P option-with-sass-compile SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true Hiedra De: Maria Jose Esteve Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 1:37 Para: dev@royale.apache.org Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Hi, @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an error in the ant compilation. The general error: BUILD FAILED D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: condition satisfied in the compilation ant: Crux: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 clean: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 check-for-tests: clean-tests: check-compiler-home: check-transpiler-home: check-compiler: compile: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 compile-swf: [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc [echo] ROYALE_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m [java] args: [java] +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 [java] +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale [java] -metadata.date=10/10/21 01:06 +0200 [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 [java] -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc [java] -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml [java] -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks/js-config.xml [java] -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml [java] 0.601410729 seconds [java] D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): col: 0 unable to open 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. [java] D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml (line: 40) [java] [java] [java] [java] I have verified that MXRoyaleBase.swc has not been generated. Attached is the compilation log. Hiedra -Mensaje original- De: Greg Dove mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> Enviado el: sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 22:19 Para: Apache Royale Development mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. I pushed the changes yesterday, and made changes to the crux examples to use MXRoyaleBase instead of MXRoyale in the dependencies, and quickly tested the ant and maven builds for those examples. I built one of them again locally using the downloaded maven artifacts today and it worked as it should, so it seems all is well (at least for simple testing). Let me know if you see any issues, but so far I believe it's working as it should. In terms of possibly moving more things from MXRoyale to MXRoyaleBase, there could be more candidates for doing that, but in order to do that there should be no dependency link to any UI implementations for each case. Greg On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 PM Harbs mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: > This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. > > Harbs > > > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove > > mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. I pushed the changes yesterday, and made changes to the crux examples to use MXRoyaleBase instead of MXRoyale in the dependencies, and quickly tested the ant and maven builds for those examples. I built one of them again locally using the downloaded maven artifacts today and it worked as it should, so it seems all is well (at least for simple testing). Let me know if you see any issues, but so far I believe it's working as it should. In terms of possibly moving more things from MXRoyale to MXRoyaleBase, there could be more candidates for doing that, but in order to do that there should be no dependency link to any UI implementations for each case. Greg On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 PM Harbs wrote: > This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. > > Harbs > > > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove wrote: > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is > willing > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most > of > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes > related > > to this. > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > > them in reply to this thread. > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) > the > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI > interfaces > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might > want > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the > Flex > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > > other reasons they might have. > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > *Royale User:* > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it > will > > continue to work as it has before. > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) > in > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > things > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have > to > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective > is > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > > MXRoyale. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > >
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. Harbs > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove wrote: > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is willing > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most of > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes related > to this. > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > them in reply to this thread. > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) the > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI interfaces > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might want > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the Flex > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > other reasons they might have. > > What impact will it have on me? > *Royale User:* > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it will > continue to work as it has before. > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) in > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make things > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have to > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > *Royale Developer:* > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective is > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > MXRoyale. > > > Thanks, > Greg
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Hi Andrew, Thanks, hopefully this is not really too complicated. I think there are already some crux examples in the SDK that would already be candidates for changing, for example. I can look at modifying those when I add it, assuming there are no concerns voiced about moving forward with this. I might leave it another 36 hours or so and move forward at that point if there are no objections. On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 11:24 AM Andrew Wetmore wrote: > Yes. I would love to help update the documentation to reflect this advance. > First step would be a clear example app or two. Then I would try to update > our getting-started material. THEN I would have to tackle the tutorials > that Carlos wrote. > > a > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:17 PM Alina Kazi wrote: > > > +1 for two libs > > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, 2:42 am Piotr Zarzycki, > > wrote: > > > > > +1 for that. > > > > > > Could you share for application which is being build by Maven how would > > > look like dependencies if someone would like to use both libraries. > > > > > > It’s just for the documentation purposes here. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Piotr > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 22:59, Greg Dove wrote: > > > > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express > > support > > > > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is > > > willing > > > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being > > most > > > of > > > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as > the > > > > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a > check-in > > to > > > > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes > > > related > > > > to this. > > > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please > > share > > > > them in reply to this thread. > > > > > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for > example) > > > the > > > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants > > to > > > > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if > anyone > > is > > > > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI > > > interfaces > > > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone > might > > > want > > > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it > is > > > > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the > > > Flex > > > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs > because > > > > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for > > whatever > > > > other reasons they might have. > > > > > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > > > *Royale User:* > > > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, > it > > > will > > > > continue to work as it has before. > > > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for > > example) > > > in > > > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > > > things > > > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't > > have > > > to > > > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into > > two > > > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which > will > > be > > > > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include > the > > > > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that > the > > > > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc > build > > as > > > > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > > > > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's > perspective > > > is > > > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases > (e.g. > > if > > > > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > > > > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, > > it > > > > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on > > the > > > > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be > > in > > > > MXRoyale. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Greg > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > > > > > -- > Andrew Wetmore > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ >
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Sure Piotr, If you need MXRoyale (with MXRoyale view components) then it would be exactly the same as before: org.apache.royale.framework MXRoyale 0.9.9-SNAPSHOT swc js Currently where you are using MXRoyale service classes only (and don't want view components or css), you had to do this: org.apache.royale.framework MXRoyale 0.9.9-SNAPSHOT swc js and include this in : -compiler.exclude-defaults-css-files=MXRoyale-0.9.9-SNAPSHOT-js.swc:defaults.css; (this is for maven specifically, for ant or IDE builds the directive is slightly different to reflect the different swc filename conventions) Instead of doing the above two things, you will simply be able to do this instead: org.apache.royale.framework MXRoyaleBase 0.9.9-SNAPSHOT swc js On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:42 AM Piotr Zarzycki wrote: > +1 for that. > > Could you share for application which is being build by Maven how would > look like dependencies if someone would like to use both libraries. > > It’s just for the documentation purposes here. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 22:59, Greg Dove wrote: > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is > willing > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most > of > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes > related > > to this. > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > > them in reply to this thread. > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) > the > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI > interfaces > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might > want > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the > Flex > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > > other reasons they might have. > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > *Royale User:* > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it > will > > continue to work as it has before. > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) > in > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > things > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have > to > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective > is > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > > MXRoyale. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki >
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
Yes. I would love to help update the documentation to reflect this advance. First step would be a clear example app or two. Then I would try to update our getting-started material. THEN I would have to tackle the tutorials that Carlos wrote. a On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:17 PM Alina Kazi wrote: > +1 for two libs > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, 2:42 am Piotr Zarzycki, > wrote: > > > +1 for that. > > > > Could you share for application which is being build by Maven how would > > look like dependencies if someone would like to use both libraries. > > > > It’s just for the documentation purposes here. > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 22:59, Greg Dove wrote: > > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express > support > > > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is > > willing > > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being > most > > of > > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > > > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in > to > > > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes > > related > > > to this. > > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please > share > > > them in reply to this thread. > > > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) > > the > > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants > to > > > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone > is > > > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI > > interfaces > > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might > > want > > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > > > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the > > Flex > > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > > > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for > whatever > > > other reasons they might have. > > > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > > *Royale User:* > > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it > > will > > > continue to work as it has before. > > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for > example) > > in > > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > > things > > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't > have > > to > > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into > two > > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will > be > > > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > > > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > > > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build > as > > > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > > > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective > > is > > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. > if > > > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > > > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, > it > > > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on > the > > > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be > in > > > MXRoyale. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > -- Andrew Wetmore http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
+1 for two libs On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, 2:42 am Piotr Zarzycki, wrote: > +1 for that. > > Could you share for application which is being build by Maven how would > look like dependencies if someone would like to use both libraries. > > It’s just for the documentation purposes here. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 22:59, Greg Dove wrote: > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is > willing > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most > of > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes > related > > to this. > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > > them in reply to this thread. > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) > the > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI > interfaces > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might > want > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the > Flex > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > > other reasons they might have. > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > *Royale User:* > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it > will > > continue to work as it has before. > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) > in > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > things > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have > to > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective > is > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > > MXRoyale. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki >
Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback.
+1 for that. Could you share for application which is being build by Maven how would look like dependencies if someone would like to use both libraries. It’s just for the documentation purposes here. Thanks, Piotr On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 22:59, Greg Dove wrote: > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express support > for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if someone is willing > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being most of > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as the > current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a check-in to > make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push any changes related > to this. > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please share > them in reply to this thread. > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for example) the > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who wants to > take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set (if anyone is > so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some of the UI interfaces > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone might want > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it is > possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of the Flex > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs because > they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply for whatever > other reasons they might have. > > What impact will it have on me? > *Royale User:* > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, it will > continue to work as it has before. > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for example) in > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make things > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't have to > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > *Royale Developer:* > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split into two > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which will be > mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will include the > MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component definitions so that the > code from the other swc gets included, resulting in the same swc build as > before for MXRoyale (this avoids breaking any builds for folks using > MXRoyale). The biggest impact from an emulation developer's perspective is > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases (e.g. if > you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in MXRoyaleBase and > UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are working on non-UI code, it > should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you are mainly working mainly on the > UI code, which I think is very often the case, it will continue to be in > MXRoyale. > > > Thanks, > Greg > -- Piotr Zarzycki
