[FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
Hi folks,

Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that contained
no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable Flex/FlexJS
SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile DataBindingExample
for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).

This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no longer
needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and see how
it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how it
looks in Flash.

If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build scripts to
produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing this
in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of the
Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some Apache
files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.  So
far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug later
as we test this further.

Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF output?
We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the AIR
and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but it
will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for the
Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and
Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy the
Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not sure
if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.

Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.  Bash
scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues on
Linux.

We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK if
it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not found.
It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK package
name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an AIR
SDK and then run the compiler.

This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe that
folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit from
at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the releases
truly appear independent from Adobe.

Thoughts?
-Alex


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

OmPrakash Muppirala
This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.

I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file download.

I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that contained
> no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable Flex/FlexJS
> SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile DataBindingExample
> for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
>
> This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
> package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
> ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no longer
> needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and see how
> it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how it
> looks in Flash.
>
> If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build scripts to
> produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing this
> in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of the
> Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some Apache
> files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.  So
> far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
> files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug later
> as we test this further.
>
> Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF output?
> We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the AIR
> and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but it
> will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for the
> Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and
> Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy the
> Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not sure
> if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
>
> Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.  Bash
> scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues on
> Linux.
>
> We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK if
> it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not found.
> It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK package
> name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an AIR
> SDK and then run the compiler.
>
> This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe that
> folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit from
> at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the releases
> truly appear independent from Adobe.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

piotrz
Hi Alex,

Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also work
with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see whether
I will not have previous errors.

Thanks!
Piotr

2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:

> This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
>
> I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file download.
>
> I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
> maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that contained
> > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable Flex/FlexJS
> > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile DataBindingExample
> > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
> >
> > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
> > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
> > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no
> longer
> > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and see
> how
> > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how it
> > looks in Flash.
> >
> > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build scripts to
> > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing this
> > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of the
> > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some Apache
> > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.  So
> > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
> > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug
> later
> > as we test this further.
> >
> > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF output?
> > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the AIR
> > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but it
> > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for the
> > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and
> > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy the
> > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not sure
> > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
> >
> > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
> Bash
> > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues on
> > Linux.
> >
> > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK if
> > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not found.
> > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK package
> > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an AIR
> > SDK and then run the compiler.
> >
> > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe
> that
> > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit from
> > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
> releases
> > truly appear independent from Adobe.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> >
>



--

Piotr Zarzycki

mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

TeotiGraphix
If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.

On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able to
develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot cleaner.

Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new project
is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR SDK
for dev and just js.

@Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?

Mike

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also work
> with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see whether
> I will not have previous errors.
>
> Thanks!
> Piotr
>
> 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:
>
> > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
> >
> > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
> download.
> >
> > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
> > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
> contained
> > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
> Flex/FlexJS
> > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
> DataBindingExample
> > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
> > >
> > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
> > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
> > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no
> > longer
> > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and see
> > how
> > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how it
> > > looks in Flash.
> > >
> > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build scripts
> to
> > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing
> this
> > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of the
> > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
> Apache
> > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.
> So
> > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
> > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug
> > later
> > > as we test this further.
> > >
> > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF output?
> > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the AIR
> > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but
> it
> > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for
> the
> > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and
> > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy the
> > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not
> sure
> > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
> > >
> > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
> > Bash
> > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues on
> > > Linux.
> > >
> > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK
> if
> > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
> found.
> > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK package
> > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an
> AIR
> > > SDK and then run the compiler.
> > >
> > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe
> > that
> > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit
> from
> > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
> > releases
> > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

OmPrakash Muppirala
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Michael Schmalle <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.
>
> On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
> setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able to
> develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot cleaner.
>
> Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new project
> is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR SDK
> for dev and just js.
>
> @Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?
>

npm comes in the picture only for folks who want the swf side of things.
The zip would not create swf files.


>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also work
> > with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see
> whether
> > I will not have previous errors.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
> > >
> > > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
> > download.
> > >
> > > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
> > > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Om
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
> > contained
> > > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
> > Flex/FlexJS
> > > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
> > DataBindingExample
> > > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
> > > >
> > > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
> > > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
> > > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no
> > > longer
> > > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and
> see
> > > how
> > > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how
> it
> > > > looks in Flash.
> > > >
> > > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build
> scripts
> > to
> > > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing
> > this
> > > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of
> the
> > > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
> > Apache
> > > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> > > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.
> > So
> > > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
> > > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug
> > > later
> > > > as we test this further.
> > > >
> > > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF
> output?
> > > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the
> AIR
> > > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but
> > it
> > > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for
> > the
> > > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and
> > > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy
> the
> > > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not
> > sure
> > > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
> > > >
> > > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
> > > Bash
> > > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues
> on
> > > > Linux.
> > > >
> > > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK
> > if
> > > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
> > found.
> > > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK
> package
> > > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an
> > AIR
> > > > SDK and then run the compiler.
> > > >
> > > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe
> > > that
> > > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit
> > from
> > > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
> > > releases
> > > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by TeotiGraphix
Here's a zip:  http://home.apache.org/~aharui/FlexJS/ApacheFlexJSJSOnly.zip

I only tried on Mac.

I didn't realize we had an NPM package that overlaid AIR/Flash into an SDK
folder.  I agree that would be better than Ant.

What I would really like to see, but not sure if it is possible, is to
have folks actually visit the Adobe site to choose their AIR and Flash SDK
version, but somehow get other code to manage the download.  That would
get us out of the hassle of presenting license acceptance dialogs.  I'm
guessing that Adobe may want to change what customers see when they go get
AIR and Flash SDKs some day.  That's why I thought about having the
compiler search for a download and expand it.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 9/7/17, 9:55 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.
>
>On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
>setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able to
>develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot
>cleaner.
>
>Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new project
>is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR SDK
>for dev and just js.
>
>@Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?
>
>Mike
>
>On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
><[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also
>>work
>> with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see
>>whether
>> I will not have previous errors.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Piotr
>>
>> 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
>> >
>> > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
>> download.
>> >
>> > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
>> > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Om
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi folks,
>> > >
>> > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
>> contained
>> > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
>> Flex/FlexJS
>> > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
>> DataBindingExample
>> > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
>> > >
>> > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
>> > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
>> > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no
>> > longer
>> > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and
>>see
>> > how
>> > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how
>>it
>> > > looks in Flash.
>> > >
>> > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build
>>scripts
>> to
>> > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing
>> this
>> > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of
>>the
>> > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
>> Apache
>> > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
>> > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.
>> So
>> > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
>> > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug
>> > later
>> > > as we test this further.
>> > >
>> > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF
>>output?
>> > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the
>>AIR
>> > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder
>>but
>> it
>> > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for
>> the
>> > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR
>>and
>> > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy
>>the
>> > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not
>> sure
>> > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
>> > >
>> > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
>> > Bash
>> > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues
>>on
>> > > Linux.
>> > >
>> > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR
>>SDK
>> if
>> > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
>> found.
>> > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK
>>package
>> > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download
>>an
>> AIR
>> > > SDK and then run the compiler.
>> > >
>> > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still
>>believe
>> > that
>> > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit
>> from
>> > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
>> > releases
>> > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts?
>> > > -Alex
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> skype: zarzycki10
>>
>> LinkedIn:
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke
>>din.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6f13a708d4f61152a
>>d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636404001645731007&sdata=T
>>C5%2FgDQcJyBbfvHQur%2BDYniytQW2qJnfr7ecfdw3S5U%3D&reserved=0
>>
>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link
>>edin.com%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552&data=02%7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6
>>f13a708d4f61152ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364040016
>>45731007&sdata=UWm2ZgY5cUE7KS%2BvQNEN45mkYF7bAImhSdezl%2FHnD%2Bo%3D&reser
>>ved=0>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

TeotiGraphix
Alex,

Being completely out of the loop, what do I have to do to use this zip
content on Windows with FB? (quick and dirty bullet list?)

Mike

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here's a zip:  http://home.apache.org/~aharui/FlexJS/
> ApacheFlexJSJSOnly.zip
>
> I only tried on Mac.
>
> I didn't realize we had an NPM package that overlaid AIR/Flash into an SDK
> folder.  I agree that would be better than Ant.
>
> What I would really like to see, but not sure if it is possible, is to
> have folks actually visit the Adobe site to choose their AIR and Flash SDK
> version, but somehow get other code to manage the download.  That would
> get us out of the hassle of presenting license acceptance dialogs.  I'm
> guessing that Adobe may want to change what customers see when they go get
> AIR and Flash SDKs some day.  That's why I thought about having the
> compiler search for a download and expand it.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> On 9/7/17, 9:55 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.
> >
> >On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
> >setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able to
> >develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot
> >cleaner.
> >
> >Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new project
> >is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR SDK
> >for dev and just js.
> >
> >@Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
> ><[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also
> >>work
> >> with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see
> >>whether
> >> I will not have previous errors.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
> >> >
> >> > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
> >> download.
> >> >
> >> > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
> >> > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Om
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi folks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
> >> contained
> >> > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
> >> Flex/FlexJS
> >> > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
> >> DataBindingExample
> >> > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
> >> > >
> >> > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we
> >> > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that is a
> >> > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is no
> >> > longer
> >> > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and
> >>see
> >> > how
> >> > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how
> >>it
> >> > > looks in Flash.
> >> > >
> >> > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build
> >>scripts
> >> to
> >> > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing
> >> this
> >> > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of
> >>the
> >> > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
> >> Apache
> >> > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> >> > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc.
> >> So
> >> > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of
> >> > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some bug
> >> > later
> >> > > as we test this further.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF
> >>output?
> >> > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the
> >>AIR
> >> > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder
> >>but
> >> it
> >> > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for
> >> the
> >> > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR
> >>and
> >> > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy
> >>the
> >> > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.  Not
> >> sure
> >> > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
> >> > >
> >> > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
> >> > Bash
> >> > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have issues
> >>on
> >> > > Linux.
> >> > >
> >> > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR
> >>SDK
> >> if
> >> > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
> >> found.
> >> > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK
> >>package
> >> > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download
> >>an
> >> AIR
> >> > > SDK and then run the compiler.
> >> > >
> >> > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still
> >>believe
> >> > that
> >> > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit
> >> from
> >> > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
> >> > releases
> >> > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> > > -Alex
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> >> skype: zarzycki10
> >>
> >> LinkedIn:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke
> >>din.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6f13a708d4f611
> 52a
> >>d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636404001645731007&sdata=T
> >>C5%2FgDQcJyBbfvHQur%2BDYniytQW2qJnfr7ecfdw3S5U%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link
> >>edin.com%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552&data=02%
> 7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6
> >>f13a708d4f61152ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364040016
> >>45731007&sdata=UWm2ZgY5cUE7KS%2BvQNEN45mkYF7bAImhSdezl%
> 2FHnD%2Bo%3D&reser
> >>ved=0>
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
Unzip
In FB, go to Preferences/Flash Builder/Installed Flex SDKs
Hit Add...

I would not make this folder the default SDK.  For some existing FlexJS
project, go to Project/Properties/Flex Compiler and choose this new SDK.
Note that Project/Clean does not clean up the "bin" folder so you may want
to manually delete it.

In this zip, I have not fixed up the launch scripts.  So, if you don't
already have a FlexJS project, you might want to first install  FlexJS
0.8.0 or a nightly and set up the launch scripts as described here [1].
Otherwise you have to manually set up your FlexJS project.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Using+FlexJS+with+Adobe+Fl
ash+Builder

HTH,
-Alex

On 9/7/17, 10:42 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Alex,
>
>Being completely out of the loop, what do I have to do to use this zip
>content on Windows with FB? (quick and dirty bullet list?)
>
>Mike
>
>On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Here's a zip:  
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fhome.apache
>>.org%2F~aharui%2FFlexJS%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cacaad6d80da64f7219a008d4f617
>>d641%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636404029622319234&sdat
>>a=xDBrnKjpkF2dsRpBdoGcD5VRXWQ4w3wqa6aVzrrjuR4%3D&reserved=0
>> ApacheFlexJSJSOnly.zip
>>
>> I only tried on Mac.
>>
>> I didn't realize we had an NPM package that overlaid AIR/Flash into an
>>SDK
>> folder.  I agree that would be better than Ant.
>>
>> What I would really like to see, but not sure if it is possible, is to
>> have folks actually visit the Adobe site to choose their AIR and Flash
>>SDK
>> version, but somehow get other code to manage the download.  That would
>> get us out of the hassle of presenting license acceptance dialogs.  I'm
>> guessing that Adobe may want to change what customers see when they go
>>get
>> AIR and Flash SDKs some day.  That's why I thought about having the
>> compiler search for a download and expand it.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 9/7/17, 9:55 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> >If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.
>> >
>> >On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
>> >setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able
>>to
>> >develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot
>> >cleaner.
>> >
>> >Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new
>>project
>> >is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR
>>SDK
>> >for dev and just js.
>> >
>> >@Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >
>> >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
>> ><[hidden email]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Alex,
>> >>
>> >> Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also
>> >>work
>> >> with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see
>> >>whether
>> >> I will not have previous errors.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Piotr
>> >>
>> >> 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
>><[hidden email]>:
>> >>
>> >> > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
>> >> download.
>> >> >
>> >> > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
>> >> > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Om
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui
>><[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi folks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
>> >> contained
>> >> > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
>> >> Flex/FlexJS
>> >> > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
>> >> DataBindingExample
>> >> > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the
>>way we
>> >> > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that
>>is a
>> >> > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is
>>no
>> >> > longer
>> >> > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE,
>>and
>> >>see
>> >> > how
>> >> > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see
>>how
>> >>it
>> >> > > looks in Flash.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build
>> >>scripts
>> >> to
>> >> > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on
>>doing
>> >> this
>> >> > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some
>>of
>> >>the
>> >> > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
>> >> Apache
>> >> > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
>> >> > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and
>>playerglobal.swc.
>> >> So
>> >> > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for
>>existence of
>> >> > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some
>>bug
>> >> > later
>> >> > > as we test this further.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF
>> >>output?
>> >> > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads
>>the
>> >>AIR
>> >> > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder
>> >>but
>> >> it
>> >> > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem
>>for
>> >> the
>> >> > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR
>> >>and
>> >> > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and
>>deploy
>> >>the
>> >> > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.
>>Not
>> >> sure
>> >> > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and
>>Linux.
>> >> > Bash
>> >> > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have
>>issues
>> >>on
>> >> > > Linux.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR
>> >>SDK
>> >> if
>> >> > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
>> >> found.
>> >> > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK
>> >>package
>> >> > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site,
>>download
>> >>an
>> >> AIR
>> >> > > SDK and then run the compiler.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still
>> >>believe
>> >> > that
>> >> > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will
>>benefit
>> >> from
>> >> > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
>> >> > releases
>> >> > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thoughts?
>> >> > > -Alex
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Piotr Zarzycki
>> >>
>> >> mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> >> skype: zarzycki10
>> >>
>> >> LinkedIn:
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke
>> >>din.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6f13a708d4f611
>> 52a
>> >>d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636404001645731007&sdata=T
>> >>C5%2FgDQcJyBbfvHQur%2BDYniytQW2qJnfr7ecfdw3S5U%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link
>> >>edin.com%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552&data=02%
>> 7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6
>> >>f13a708d4f61152ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364040016
>> >>45731007&sdata=UWm2ZgY5cUE7KS%2BvQNEN45mkYF7bAImhSdezl%
>> 2FHnD%2Bo%3D&reser
>> >>ved=0>
>> >>
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

TeotiGraphix
Thanks, I will report back when I have some spare time.

Mike

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unzip
> In FB, go to Preferences/Flash Builder/Installed Flex SDKs
> Hit Add...
>
> I would not make this folder the default SDK.  For some existing FlexJS
> project, go to Project/Properties/Flex Compiler and choose this new SDK.
> Note that Project/Clean does not clean up the "bin" folder so you may want
> to manually delete it.
>
> In this zip, I have not fixed up the launch scripts.  So, if you don't
> already have a FlexJS project, you might want to first install  FlexJS
> 0.8.0 or a nightly and set up the launch scripts as described here [1].
> Otherwise you have to manually set up your FlexJS project.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Using+
> FlexJS+with+Adobe+Fl
> ash+Builder
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 9/7/17, 10:42 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Alex,
> >
> >Being completely out of the loop, what do I have to do to use this zip
> >content on Windows with FB? (quick and dirty bullet list?)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a zip:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http:%2F%2Fhome.apache
> >>.org%2F~aharui%2FFlexJS%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7Cacaad6d80da64f7219a008d4f617
> >>d641%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636404029622319234&sdat
> >>a=xDBrnKjpkF2dsRpBdoGcD5VRXWQ4w3wqa6aVzrrjuR4%3D&reserved=0
> >> ApacheFlexJSJSOnly.zip
> >>
> >> I only tried on Mac.
> >>
> >> I didn't realize we had an NPM package that overlaid AIR/Flash into an
> >>SDK
> >> folder.  I agree that would be better than Ant.
> >>
> >> What I would really like to see, but not sure if it is possible, is to
> >> have folks actually visit the Adobe site to choose their AIR and Flash
> >>SDK
> >> version, but somehow get other code to manage the download.  That would
> >> get us out of the hassle of presenting license acceptance dialogs.  I'm
> >> guessing that Adobe may want to change what customers see when they go
> >>get
> >> AIR and Flash SDKs some day.  That's why I thought about having the
> >> compiler search for a download and expand it.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 9/7/17, 9:55 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <[hidden email]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> >If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this.
> >> >
> >> >On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented
> >> >setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able
> >>to
> >> >develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot
> >> >cleaner.
> >> >
> >> >Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new
> >>project
> >> >is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR
> >>SDK
> >> >for dev and just js.
> >> >
> >> >@Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip?
> >> >
> >> >Mike
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
> >> ><[hidden email]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Alex,
> >> >>
> >> >> Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also
> >> >>work
> >> >> with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see
> >> >>whether
> >> >> I will not have previous errors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> Piotr
> >> >>
> >> >> 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
> >><[hidden email]>:
> >> >>
> >> >> > This is a big big deal.  Thanks for getting this done.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file
> >> >> download.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue
> >> >> > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Om
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui
> >><[hidden email]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Hi folks,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that
> >> >> contained
> >> >> > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable
> >> >> Flex/FlexJS
> >> >> > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile
> >> >> DataBindingExample
> >> >> > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the
> >>way we
> >> >> > > package FlexJS releases.  We could have a default package that
> >>is a
> >> >> > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files.  Then the Installer is
> >>no
> >> >> > longer
> >> >> > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE,
> >>and
> >> >>see
> >> >> > how
> >> >> > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see
> >>how
> >> >>it
> >> >> > > looks in Flash.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build
> >> >>scripts
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on
> >>doing
> >> >> this
> >> >> > > in Maven).  In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some
> >>of
> >> >>the
> >> >> > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some
> >> >> Apache
> >> >> > > files.  For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object
> >> >> > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and
> >>playerglobal.swc.
> >> >> So
> >> >> > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for
> >>existence of
> >> >> > > files, not actual classes in these files.  But we might hit some
> >>bug
> >> >> > later
> >> >> > > as we test this further.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF
> >> >>output?
> >> >> > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads
> >>the
> >> >>AIR
> >> >> > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder
> >> >>but
> >> >> it
> >> >> > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem
> >>for
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > Installer.  We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR
> >> >>and
> >> >> > > Flash SDKs.  We could provide Ant scripts that download and
> >>deploy
> >> >>the
> >> >> > > Adobe bits.  I think we already have bash scripts that do this.
> >>Not
> >> >> sure
> >> >> > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and
> >>Linux.
> >> >> > Bash
> >> >> > > scripts require a shell on Windows.  I believe AIR apps have
> >>issues
> >> >>on
> >> >> > > Linux.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR
> >> >>SDK
> >> >> if
> >> >> > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not
> >> >> found.
> >> >> > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK
> >> >>package
> >> >> > > name.  So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site,
> >>download
> >> >>an
> >> >> AIR
> >> >> > > SDK and then run the compiler.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still
> >> >>believe
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will
> >>benefit
> >> >> from
> >> >> > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the
> >> >> > releases
> >> >> > > truly appear independent from Adobe.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> >> > > -Alex
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >> >>
> >> >> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> >> >> skype: zarzycki10
> >> >>
> >> >> LinkedIn:
> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke
> >> >>din.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C68c0e7a2fd034d6f13a708d4f611
> >> 52a
> >> >>d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >> 7C636404001645731007&sdata=T
> >> >>C5%2FgDQcJyBbfvHQur%2BDYniytQW2qJnfr7ecfdw3S5U%3D&reserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpl.link
> >> >>edin.com%2Fin%2Fpiotr-zarzycki-92a53552&data=02%
> >> 7C01%7C%7C68c0e7a2fd034d6
> >> >>f13a708d4f61152ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364040016
> >> >>45731007&sdata=UWm2ZgY5cUE7KS%2BvQNEN45mkYF7bAImhSdezl%
> >> 2FHnD%2Bo%3D&reser
> >> >>ved=0>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Olaf Krueger
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
>If this sound good to folks..

This sounds really good, Alex!!
I think it's an important thing to get rid of some dependencies and to ease
the FlexJS setup.

Thanks,
Olaf





--
Sent from: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Adam Malejko
This sounds great!

In our use cases, we don't have a need for SWF output when doing FlexJS
projects, and we suspect that we are not alone. For those that want JS and
SWF output, what is the appeal or need?

The existing Apache Flex compiler (with AIR if needed for mobile) works
fine for our current projects. For the new ones and upcoming conversions,
an Apache-only and therefore Adobe-free framework sounds awesome. Also, yes
to ant, and no to bash scripts for us.


On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Olaf Krueger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >If this sound good to folks..
>
> This sounds really good, Alex!!
> I think it's an important thing to get rid of some dependencies and to ease
> the FlexJS setup.
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
Hi Adam,

Thanks for your input.  Many of us want to make sure SWF output is viable
for several reasons 3 of which quickly come to mind:
1) There is a runtime verifier in the Flash Player.  When you run your
code in Flash/AIR it is literally running 1000's of tests that the browser
doesn't run and won't catch until something way more serious blows up.
Flash runtimes are way more likely to catch the error at the point of
failure.
2) If you are allowed to deploy a SWF there should be much less
cross-browser testing and bug fixing required.
3) The Flash debugger understands types and access protection.

I attended a presentation where a guy was live-coding a demo in some JS
framework.  He ran the app, typed in something like "10000000000" and hit
a button.  The demo failed because he got an exception trying to save that
value in the database.  The problem was that the JS runtime would not
autoconvert that String to a int (via parseInt, IIRC) because it was out
range, but instead of it being caught at input time, it wasn't caught
until it got all the way to the commit to the backend.

Even more important for large apps that use modules written by different
teams, the Flash Player will check at module load time if your module
conforms to the interface expected by the loading application.  If one
team or the other changes the interface, without Flash you won't know
until some other bug happens.

Can you live without using Flash to test your app?  Yes, of course, but
we're just trying to give you as many ways to optimize your developer
productivity.  We may not put as much emphasis on making the Flash version
pixel-for-pixel the same as JS.  It isn't perfect now and depending if we
see folks interested in #2, we may just limit the effort to getting
bounding boxes for the UI widgets to line up well enough to essentially
serve as mocks for your test harnesses.

Thanks,
-Alex


On 9/7/17, 3:43 PM, "Adam Malejko" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>This sounds great!
>
>In our use cases, we don't have a need for SWF output when doing FlexJS
>projects, and we suspect that we are not alone. For those that want JS and
>SWF output, what is the appeal or need?
>
>The existing Apache Flex compiler (with AIR if needed for mobile) works
>fine for our current projects. For the new ones and upcoming conversions,
>an Apache-only and therefore Adobe-free framework sounds awesome. Also,
>yes
>to ant, and no to bash scripts for us.
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Olaf Krueger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> >If this sound good to folks..
>>
>> This sounds really good, Alex!!
>> I think it's an important thing to get rid of some dependencies and to
>>ease
>> the FlexJS setup.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from:
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fl
>>ex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde37fb9d9fa24bd
>>3570808d4f641ff7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364042107
>>60660905&sdata=%2BvIXdHHekLGyvE%2F9S6gouQaoRGH7fEiZ8dOQ4m8vo4E%3D&reserve
>>d=0
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Adam Malejko
Thanks Alex,

That was informative and enlightening. I had no idea the SWF output was
that valuable overall for testing.

I would not push for pixel-perfect representation; there are certain
browser quirks and differences that are just not going to be worth it.


On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> Thanks for your input.  Many of us want to make sure SWF output is viable
> for several reasons 3 of which quickly come to mind:
> 1) There is a runtime verifier in the Flash Player.  When you run your
> code in Flash/AIR it is literally running 1000's of tests that the browser
> doesn't run and won't catch until something way more serious blows up.
> Flash runtimes are way more likely to catch the error at the point of
> failure.
> 2) If you are allowed to deploy a SWF there should be much less
> cross-browser testing and bug fixing required.
> 3) The Flash debugger understands types and access protection.
>
> I attended a presentation where a guy was live-coding a demo in some JS
> framework.  He ran the app, typed in something like "10000000000" and hit
> a button.  The demo failed because he got an exception trying to save that
> value in the database.  The problem was that the JS runtime would not
> autoconvert that String to a int (via parseInt, IIRC) because it was out
> range, but instead of it being caught at input time, it wasn't caught
> until it got all the way to the commit to the backend.
>
> Even more important for large apps that use modules written by different
> teams, the Flash Player will check at module load time if your module
> conforms to the interface expected by the loading application.  If one
> team or the other changes the interface, without Flash you won't know
> until some other bug happens.
>
> Can you live without using Flash to test your app?  Yes, of course, but
> we're just trying to give you as many ways to optimize your developer
> productivity.  We may not put as much emphasis on making the Flash version
> pixel-for-pixel the same as JS.  It isn't perfect now and depending if we
> see folks interested in #2, we may just limit the effort to getting
> bounding boxes for the UI widgets to line up well enough to essentially
> serve as mocks for your test harnesses.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 9/7/17, 3:43 PM, "Adam Malejko" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >This sounds great!
> >
> >In our use cases, we don't have a need for SWF output when doing FlexJS
> >projects, and we suspect that we are not alone. For those that want JS and
> >SWF output, what is the appeal or need?
> >
> >The existing Apache Flex compiler (with AIR if needed for mobile) works
> >fine for our current projects. For the new ones and upcoming conversions,
> >an Apache-only and therefore Adobe-free framework sounds awesome. Also,
> >yes
> >to ant, and no to bash scripts for us.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Olaf Krueger <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> >If this sound good to folks..
> >>
> >> This sounds really good, Alex!!
> >> I think it's an important thing to get rid of some dependencies and to
> >>ease
> >> the FlexJS setup.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Olaf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fl
> >>ex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7Cde37fb9d9fa24bd
> >>3570808d4f641ff7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364042107
> >>60660905&sdata=%2BvIXdHHekLGyvE%2F9S6gouQaoRGH7fEiZ8dOQ4m8vo4E
> %3D&reserve
> >>d=0
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

PKumar
Alex,

Tried this package with VCode but getting the attached errror with no code
intelligence

<http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/file/t1149/Capture2.png>



--
Sent from: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

PKumar
after removing that line, everything  is fine. Thanks



--
Sent from: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Future packaging of FlexJS releases

Alex Harui-2
OK, good to know it works for other people.

I've been trying to adjust the build scripts to create this package
automatically.  The current problem I'm wrestling with is in the Flash
Builder launch configs.  The launch configs are used by Flash Builder to
update a new Flex project with a valid FlexJS application template.  Flash
Builder currently can't create a new FlexJS project with the right
template.  We also use them as a convenience for launching Cordova apps.

Right now, the Installer (actually the Ant script) modifies the launch
configs to replace a token in the scripts with the installation folder.
Launch configs are copied from the installation folder to the workspace
folder so when you launch them, they have lost where they have been copied
from so it can't find other files in the SDK, which is why the installer
replaces a token to point to the SDK folder.

Then, related, as we were preparing our quarterly board report, some PMC
members asked how many FlexJS downloads there have been.  Consider that if
we distribute this non-Adobe packaging as a zip file on Apache mirrors and
it becomes popular, it will totally skew our download statistics because
we can't get good numbers of downloads from the mirrors and even then, it
can be copied internally.

So, launch scripts that work out of the box and good download analytics
are two things we lose by going with this new packaging.  Many folks don't
use Flash Builder so requiring Flash Builder customers to run some script
to update the launch configs may be a reasonable solution.  But it would
be a bummer to lose track of successful installs.

So, we could go back to using the Installer to install this new package.
The install should go fast and won't ask for accepting Adobe licenses.  Or
we could try to create something that the Installer runs after you unpack
the zip.  Maybe leave a file in the zip that the compiler knows about and
after that file gets 30 days old it asks you to run the Installer to
'register' your SDK and that will fix up the launch configs and hit our
analytics.  We could have the compiler try to hit the analytics, but I
don't want to go down that road right now.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 9/10/17, 8:10 AM, "PKumar" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>after removing that line, everything  is fine. Thanks
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc9f4a45d0efb475da
>70208d4f85e1630%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364065303683
>06769&sdata=f%2Bl76Ga%2F%2BjXuaGZlzHiPnoZYP8po1epdVszWY8IJyjg%3D&reserved=
>0