flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: AW: AW: FlexUnit
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:51 GMT
Sounds sensible and it would simplyfy stuff greatly :-)


Von: omuppi1@gmail.com [omuppi1@gmail.com] im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala [bigosmallm@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. August 2013 09:27
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: FlexUnit

On Aug 29, 2013 11:44 PM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Well the poms themselves don't help with the libs. I will probably be
adding functionality to download Adobe stuff after asking for confirmation
by the user as we discussed some months ago as soon as I am picking up on
the new maven plugin. Guess it would be possible to have binary Apache Flex
Releases in public repos. But for now I really like the idea of integrating
the Mavenizer and Deployer into the Installer (You Need that anyway in
order to get a new FDK)
> Chris

I am up for it.  Although I need to admit that most of what you just said
is beyond my understanding.  Let me  propose a route.  Tell me if I am in
the right track.

1.  User accepts all the licenses in the Installer.
2.  Installation completes and SDK (FDK in your terminology) is ready to be
used with an IDE.
3. We show the user an option to Mavenize the SDK.
4. If the user accepts, then we invoke the Mavenizer command-line script.
5.  We show another prompt asking if the user wants to deploy it.
6.  If the user accepts, then we invoke the Deployer command-line script.

Is this acceptable/doable?  This is doable from the Installer point if view.


> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui [aharui@adobe.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2013 23:27
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: FlexUnit
> On 8/29/13 8:08 AM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de"
> <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >Well the Problem are the Adobe libs ... playerglobal and some others,
> >that we are not allowed to publish. There wouldn't be any trouble with
> >deploying the rest of the FDK to public repos beyond that, I guess. But
> >unfortunately these FDKs would be completeley useless without the missing
> >Adobe libs :-(
> Yeah, but I thought we were going to try to put POMs on the Adobe download
> server?  What happened to that plan?
> -Alex
View raw message