flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: List of dependencies
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:22:36 GMT
Sounds ok to me.

On 9/21/14 8:30 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Ok ... so:
>
>- AIR SDK: Is taken care of by Flexmojos with embedded Mavenizer
>- PlayerGlobal: Is taken care of by Flexmojos with embedded Mavenizer
>- BlazeDS: We could takte care of this by releaseing BlazeDS
>- Embedded Fonts: Is NOT taken care of currently but I would implement
>this similarly to AIR and PlayerGlobal in Flexmojos
>- Osmf: MPL Licensed, but not published to Maven Central
>- SWFObject: Is already released and available via Maven:
>http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/webjars/swfobject/2.2/s
>wfobject-2.2.jar
>
>So would you be ok with me implementing something similar to AIR and
>PlayerGlobal download for Font Embedding in Flexmojos, we start using the
>SWFObject deployed to MavenCentral and we leave out OSMF from the flex
>core pom (So if someone adds a dependency to
>"org.apache.flex:framework:{version}:pom" this is no longer automatically
>added and if someone needs it he has to manually add a dependency to it?
>If it's really only two classes needed for parsing the settings for amf &
>co, working around this by somehow including those classes directly
>should have us in a state in which I could write the Ant script to have
>SNAPSHOTS deployed and we could start releasing Flex as Maven artifacts.
>
>What do you think? Would this be something we could live with?
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. September 2014 16:18
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: AW: AW: List of dependencies
>
>I believe (needs proving) that everything in the list is optional from a
>build perspective.
>
>-AIR SDK:  Required for IDEs. Required for Mobile and Desktop.  Not
>required for Browser apps.
>-PlayerGlobal: Required for IDEs.  Required for Browser apps.  Not
>required for Mobile and Desktop.
>-BlazeDS: Required for any app that uses services-config.xml.
>-Embedded Fonts: Required for apps that embed fonts.
>-OSMF: Required for apps that use Spark video (but not MX video).
>-SWFObject:  Required for IDEs.  Required for Browser apps.  Not required
>for Mobile and Desktop.
>
>
>HTH,
>-Alex
>
>
>On 9/21/14 2:43 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>>And what about osmf?
>>
>>I think I have never ever actually used it. Could it be possible that
>>for a maven release of flex having osmf included isn't a requirement?
>>Would it be a valid approach to have people add a depdencency to osmf
>>only if they actually want to use it?
>>
>>So in this case adding:
>>
>><dependency>
>>    <groupId>com.adobe.osmf</groupId>
>>    <artifactId>osmf</artifactId>
>>    <version>2.0</version>
>>    <type>swc</type>
>></dependency>
>>
>>Would deal with it. What exactly is SWFObject needed for? Would it be
>>valid to have it omitted from an official Flex Maven release? In this
>>case I think simply documenting what you need to do to enable different
>>features sounds a better approach than bundling other projects with ours.
>>Currently we already have different parts of flex separate, why not
>>these too?
>>
>>I'm just asking this because I was thinking about adding my
>>maven-deploy-ant stuff to the flex-sdk and hereby have nightly-build
>>SNAPSHOT versions generated automatically.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Christofer Dutz [mailto:christofer.dutz@c-ware.de]
>>Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. September 2014 10:55
>>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>Betreff: AW: AW: List of dependencies
>>
>>And am I correct, that you only need the Embedded Fonts if you are
>>actually embedding fonts. Flex would work fine without those 4 libs if
>>you don't use the font encoding?
>>
>>Its just that I don't want to proceed in a direction that would make us
>>release stuff that can't work on ist own.
>>
>>I would also have to have a look how to add something to the plugin
>>classpath as playerglobal and airglobal are added to the application
>>classpath and the font-embedding needs to go to the plugins classpath.
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>>Gesendet: Samstag, 20. September 2014 16:15
>>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>Betreff: Re: AW: List of dependencies
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>OK, so the jars you are interested in aren't in Maven Central.  The
>>Adobe stuff in Maven Central appears to have open licenses.
>>
>>The installer shows you the sets of external dependencies (from memory):
>>AIR SDK, PlayerGlobal, BlazeDS, Embedded Fonts, OSMF, SWFObject.
>>
>>SWFObject is under MIT so we probably don't really need to ask folks
>>about it, and we could bundle it in the future.
>>OSMF is under MPL so I don't think Adobe cares that folks accept its
>>license.
>>BlazeDS is under MPL, as well.  In future Apache Flex releases, this
>>will no longer be an external dependency.  I'm pretty sure the compiler
>>only uses one or two classes from one BlazeDS jar.  We don't even
>>really need to release BlazeDS to remove this dependency, we could
>>change our build script to pull those two classes.
>>Embedded Fonts is under Adobe license so it needs to be treated like
>>AIR SDK and PlayerGlobal.  It is four jars, and you only truly need to
>>ask once for the set of four, not for each one.
>>
>>HTH,
>>-Alex
>>
>>
>>On 9/20/14 1:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I
>>>hate this discussion fragmentation)
>>>
>>>I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air
>>>artifacts, but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about
>>>one font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was
>>>an assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often
>>>and I was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo
>>>deployed back in the old days when he still did that.
>>>
>>>From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from
>>>Adobe and Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the
>>>stuff. At first I was thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air
>>>artifacts at Sonatype and us releasing our stuff at Apache with both
>>>ending up in Maven central. But Sonatype explained that the permit had
>>>expired and Adobe didn't want to renew it. So that door is closed.
>>>
>>>I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after
>>>Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal
>>>and the feature seems to be working nicely.
>>>
>>>Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open
>>>repo:
>>>https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compi
>>>l
>>>er~
>>>afe~~~
>>>Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash
>>>so I was thinking about referencing this artifact for example:
>>>https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/conten
>>>t /co m/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar
>>>
>>>My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and
>>>airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I
>>>doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling
>>>the same way. I would become more and more a hack.
>>>
>>>Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we
>>>still rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start
>>>finding solutions to where to get them from or how to make the
>>>build-system cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check
>>>if afe is present only if font encoding is being used in the project
>>>and eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this
>>>for every external and optional dependency.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________________
>>>Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <omuppi1@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash
>>>Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
>>>Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39
>>>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>Betreff: Re: List of dependencies
>>>
>>>On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Om,
>>>>
>>>> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central?  I can't find
>>>>them with  the search facility.  Can you post the URLs?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Here is what I found:
>>>
>>>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe
>>>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos
>>>
>>>Chris can probably give you the correct list.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Om
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory,
>>>> >> >what is
>>>> >>the
>>>> >> >best way to move forward?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good
>>>> >> >enough
>>>>for
>>>> >>us,
>>>> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
>>>> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I
>>>> >> asked
>>>>Adobe
>>>> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the
>>>> >> Adobe
>>>>EULA
>>>> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies.  The
>>>>sense
>>>> >>I
>>>> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there
>>>> >>are under  open licenses.  Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven
>>>> >>extension to do that.
>>>> >>  If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask
>>>> >>Adobe  Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded
>>>> >>without  explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me
>>>> >>to remove
>>>>all
>>>> >>of
>>>> >> them.  Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they
>>>> >are today.  If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license
>>>>agreement UI
>>>> >action.
>>>> >
>>>> >Chris, is this acceptable for you?  Others?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already
on
>>>>Maven,
>>>> >>so
>>>> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am
>>>>guessing.
>>>> >> It might be.  Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe.
>>>>If
>>>> >>I
>>>> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >Fair enough :-)
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks,
>>>> >Om
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> -Alex
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message