Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Logistics (was: Future packaging of FlexJS releases)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS][Installer] Logistics (was: Future packaging of FlexJS releases)

Alex Harui-2
I was about to start on this in the Ant scripts which got be thinking
about how Apache wants source packaging to correspond to binary packaging
via a build script.  IOW, I don't think it is right to change the current
binary packaging script to package up binaries from flex-falcon unless we
also start packaging flex-falcon sources in with the flex-asjs sources.
And then create a complicated build script for all of those sources.

I'm currently thinking that the best plan is to continue to ship
flex-falcon artifacts like we do know and have our Ant build script bring
in the flex-falcon artifacts as upstream dependencies.  So that will still
be more than one release vote thread (one for flex-falcon, one for
flex-asjs) but also gives us the opportunity to release compiler fixes
separately from the AS framework.  But more interestingly, I think it will
mean that you can use your flex-asjs working copy as an SDK in Flash
Builder and other IDEs which might help folks.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 9/7/17, 9:57 AM, "[hidden email] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

>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:
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linke
>>din.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc63c39a45d374a38ef2a08d4f611aa5
>>4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636404003122149967&sdata=U
>>Yc%2BoDYsD%2FIjYJZeBKREB9XljDtAwhH2bniUaCQ7mb4%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%7Cc63c39a45d374a3
>>8ef2a08d4f611aa54%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364040031
>>22149967&sdata=ij%2Fk8%2BgVM7yrUgsen2aaju1DRman7SZYCV2HQ6LOSIY%3D&reserve
>>d=0>
>> >
>>